Section 10(1) CLA 1977 creates an offence of obstructing a judicial enforcement officer effecting enforcement of a court order for recovery of possession of property.
But section 10(2) explicitly excludes, basically, residential tenants, from being able to commit this offence.
Why would it do this? Obviously and for very readily understandable reasons, residential tenants receive greatly enhanced protections under the statutory regime, with many safeguards for them to appeal against losing their home, challenge possession bids or appeal against possession orders, with which one may agree or disagree with (then whether for being excessive or insufficient), but whatever the case, Parliament clearly intended to somehow balance tenants rights to keep their homes with landlords interests in eventually being able to recover possession once all the safety valves have been exhausted, at which point the state eventually asserts its authority and will through brute judicial enforcement.
It is only common sense that when one ultimately defies a state’s assertion and exercise of its sovereign authority, they can expect to suffer punitive sanctions, such as criminal proceedings, which is exactly what s10(1) enables.
But why might s10(2) possibly negate this principle in case the disgruntled subjects of the court’s possession order being enforced had been residential tenants?