D BALAKRISHNAMURTHY Vs. MANASANI VEERANARASSAIAH ALIAS NARASIMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Rent Control Case No.577 of 1963 on the file of the Rent Controller. Secunderabad. an application for the eviction of the tenant under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was granted. The order of eviction relates to the non-residential premises bearing Door Nos. 87-B-1 and 87-A situate at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad. The Landlords petitioners based their application for eviction on the allegation, of willful default in payment of rent, submission of the landlords. and the user of with the purpose of the lease. The tenant, who was the sole respondent in the application,. raised several pleas in his answer to the petition. He denied that there was a sub-lease and asserted that he himself was carrying on business in the premises in the name and style of "Rio Cafe" and that the alleged sub-tenant was no other than his agent who was assisting him in the business. It was also stated that in the premises Door No.87-A,, business in the name of the Dio laundry was being carried on by the tenant himself with the assistance of a washerman. the tenant also denied the other material averments in the petition including the one about the wilful default in the payment of rent. The contesting parties appear to have adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas. It would appeal that the landlords-petitioners let in evidence of applications to and transactions with the Commercial Tax Department, which tended to show that the hotel business run in the premises was solely on account of persons other than the tenant on their own account. Oral evidence also appears to have been adduced by the parties.

(2.) Nearly three years after the presentation of the petition, the parties entered into a compromise as a result of which memo of compromise was submitted to the Court. Thereupon, the court directed eviction of the tenant after the directed eviction of the tenant after the expiry of the time fixed by the parties in the memorandum of compromise. Execution of the order of eviction was sought by the landlords who succeeded in obtaining possion from sub-tenant other than the respondent in C.R.P. No.1480 of 1968.

(3.) The respondent who claims, to be the sub-tenant the premises resisted the proceedings for delivery of possession on the ground that the eviction order passed on the consent of the landlords and the tenant, is a nullity and is consequently not executable. The objectors petition E.A.No.217 of 1966 was considered by the Rent Controller along with the petition for delivery of possession E.P.No.86 of 1966. While disallowing the objection of the sub-tenant, the Rent controller, nevertheless, negatived the prayer for execution. There are, therefore, two revision petitions preferred to this Court. C.R.P. No.1940 of 1968 by the landlords and C.R.P, No.1849 of 1968 by the sub-tenant. The landlords and the sub-tenant will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and the respondents respectively.