KATURI NAGESWARAMMA Vs. GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATESWARA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order made by the Rent Controller at Vijayawada dated 22-12-1997 in E.A.No.12/ 96 in E.P.No.11/96 in R.C.C.No.25/92. The 1st respondent is the decree-holder and the 2nd respondent is the judgment-debtor in the E.P.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the revision petitioner filed the petition under Rule 23(7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules 1961, hereinafter called "Rules" in short, read with Order 21, Rule 58 CPC. The case of the revision petitioner is that she had occupied the schedule property about 30 years back and had perfected her title by adverse possession and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by paying taxes and she got electricity service connection also and the entire schedule property bears three door numbers and the 1st respondent obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent and in execution of the same, had dispossessed the petitioner without notice and the revision petitioner had narrated several details, including certain criminal proceedings. The 1st and the 2nd respondents also had filed counters. The 1st respondent had denied all the allegations and had stated that the petitioner is only a sub-lessee under the original judgment debtor - 2nd respondent, and therefore she is bound by the same and the premises was delivered as per the orders of the Court lawfully and there is no fraud or collusion and the 2nd respondent also filed a counter stating that the petitioner is a sub-lessee and she had stopped payment of rents even to the 2nd respondent, thereby he was unable to pay rents to the 1st respondent and hence he became a defaulter. The 2nd respondent had failed to appear after cross-examination of the petitioner and had not even argued the matter. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 had been recorded on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.A-1 to A-93 were marked. The evidence of RW-1 was recorded and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked. Apart from it, Exs.Xl to X-19 also had been marked. The Court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the same, the present revision was filed by the third partyobjector.

(3.) Ms. Padma, representing Mrs. Kamaleswari, the Counsel for revision petitioner had submitted that PW-1 is the husband of the revision petitioner and PWs.2 to 5 support her case in toto and Exs.A-1 to A-93 also clearly go to show that she was in possession of the property in dispute and she was forcibly dispossessed. The learned Counsel also had contended that the report of the authorised person also supports her case in toto and the learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the portions of the said report. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Koneru Aruna Kumari v. Shaik Ali, 1990 (1) ALT 387, Gongunta Krishna Murthy v. Bommisetti Narasimha Rao and others, 1987 (2) ALT 198 and Mirza Ali Safavi v. G. Bhaskar Rao, 1993 (2) ALT 35 (NRC).