As per case facts, an eviction petition was filed against K.Parthasarathy, which was ordered ex-parte. Despite attempts, the ex-parte order remained. An execution petition followed, but K.Parthasarathy, claiming under a ... prior sale deed and denying landlord-tenant relationship, obstructed it. He also initiated a rent control appeal, which abated upon his demise. The revision petitioner, claiming as K.Parthasarathy's legatee via a probated Will, continued the obstruction. The executing Court upheld the obstruction, finding no jural landlord-tenant relationship and a bona fide title dispute, leading to the dismissal of the execution petition. However, the Appellate Authority reversed this, questioning the Will and K.Parthasarathy's appeal. The revision petitions were filed against this reversal. The question arose whether the Appellate Authority correctly disregarded the executing Court's findings on the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the existence of a bona fide title dispute. Finally, the High Court found the Appellate Authority erred in its factual and legal considerations, especially concerning the probated Will and the abatement of K.Parthasarathy's appeal, which was not a decision on merits. The High Court upheld the executing Court's decision that there was a valid obstruction due to a bona fide title dispute, meaning the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction. The revision petitions were allowed, but it was clarified that the respondents could pursue their title claims in a competent civil court.