MANYAM LAKSHMIKANTHAM Vs. RUNKANA BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners obtained an order of eviction in RCC No. 22 of 1996 on the fife of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram. The respondent-tenant filed an appeal under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the Act'). In the application being IA No. 1150 of 1990, seeking stay, filed by the respondent-tenant, the appellate Court granted stay subject to the condition of the respondent-tenant paying arrears of rent to the petitioners-landlords. The respondent-tenant, allegedly committed default in paying the arrears of rent, as directed by the appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioners-landlords filed execution petition being EP No. 112 of 2000, under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code'), seeking direction to the respondent-tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule property under Section 15 of the Act. The learned Rent Controller by the impugned order, dismissed the EP holding that in the absence of any order of the appellate Court rendering the eviction order executable, no EP would be maintainable. The learned Rent Controller also recorded the statement made by the respondent-tenant in the counter that conditional order of the appellate Court was complied with.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners-landlords, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, submits that the moment the respondent-tenant committed default by not complying with the order of the appellate Court passed in IA No. 1150 of 1999, the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller would become executable and the learned Rent Controller ought to have passed an order directing the respondent-tenant to put the petitioners-land lords in possession. I am afraid, the submission is devoid of any merit.

(3.) The respondent-tenant appears to have made a categorical statement in the counter-affidavit filed before the learned Rent Controller stating that pursuant to the conditional order passed by the appellate Court he deposited the rents under Challan No. 513 of 2000, dated 29-12-1999 for the period from January, 199 9/12/1999. This is not specifically denied by petitioners-landlords before the learned Rent Controller. Further, if the petitioners-landlords disputed the quantum of amount payable towards arrears of rent or otherwise, instead of moving the learned Rent Controller under Section 15 of the Act, they ought to have moved the appellate Court for further clarifications. In this context a reference be made to Section 11(4) of the Act which reads: Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction:(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.