respondents would submit that even though the petitioner purchased the petitioner in the year 1996, the nodal officer came to be appointed only in the year 2002 and he has been collecting the rents from 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner will not alienate the property in question till the partition suit filed by the fourth respondent is concluded by the trial Court. This undertaking is placed on record. The Revenue Divisional Officer who was appointed as nodal officer under the provisions of TNPID Act cannot collect rents since the attachment itself has been set aside. The dispute is only between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. If the fourth respondent has obtained any direction from the jurisdictional civil Court, it would be a different matter altogether. Till date, the fourth respondent has not obtained any such direction. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti is restrained from making further collection of rents from the occupants/ tenants of the shop in question. Whatever amount that was collected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti shall be handed over to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay. Since the petitioner has already given an undertaking not to alienate the property till the partition suit is over, the fourth respondent's right is also protected. This arrangement will be subject to any order that may be passed by the jurisdictional civil court at the instance of the fourth respondent.
