dismissed the Appeal on the ground that, unless and until, the tenant of the respondents/plaintiffs, viz., Syndicate Bank, Gudalur vacates the suit schedule property, the revision petitioner/defendant cannot be injuncted from using the stair case. Thus, as and when the tenant of the respondents, viz., Syndicate Bank, Gudalur, vacated the suit premises, the respondents/plaintiffs filed latter suit, viz., O.S.No.14 of 2013, claiming damages, as the revision petitioner and his tenants had made use of the stair case in the suit schedule property even after the revocation of the licence from 01.01.2010 till 07.01.2023, and as such, the revision petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as damages for the use of the stair case for 36 months, amounting to Rs.1,08,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. The Trial Court appreciating all the aforesaid aspects, rightly decreed the suit for recovery of damages and that since the revision petitioner/judgement debtor failed to pay the decree amount, the respondents/decree holders filed an Execution Petition and the said Petition was also rightly allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court.
