K SHIVA PRASAD Vs. C SREE RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of execution proceedings in furtherance of an order of eviction passed under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dated 31-7-2001 rejecting an application filed under Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules is the subject matter of the Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute areas follows: The 1st respondent herein filed R.C.No.9 of 1995 seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The said eviction petition, after contest was allowed by order dated 13-9-1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent herein who is the sole respondent in R.C.No.9 of 1995 preferred R.A.No.644 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but the same was dismissed by judgment dated 31-7-1997. The matter was carried to this Court by filing C.R.P.No.3569 of 1997, but the Revision was also dismissed by order dated 2-2-2001 granting three months time to vacate the premises. However, since the judgment-debtor who is the 2nd respondent herein did not vacate the premises, the landlord i.e., the 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.15 of 2001 for execution of the order of eviction as upheld by this Court in C.R.P.No.3569 of 1997. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 16-7-2001 issued warrant for eviction against the judgment-debtor, but the same was returned on 19-7-2001 with an endorsement that the premises was under lock and key when the bailiff went to execute the warrant. The landlord - 1st respondent herein filed an application to break open the lock and the same was permitted by the learned Rent Controller. At that stage the Revision Petitioner filed a claim petition under Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules (for short 'the Rules') to enquire into the facts of the case and to recall the warrant of eviction. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, he contended that he is the younger son of the deceased tenant of the petition schedule premises and that he came to know about the eviction proceedings in R.C.No.9 of 1995 only on 23-7-2001 when he went to the City Civil Court, Secunderabad on some other work. He further contended that since he is one of the legal heirs of the original tenant, he is entitled to come on record and expressed his apprehension that the eviction order was obtained by the landlord without making him a party in collusion with the judgment-debtor so as to deprive his legitimate right as a co-tenant. The learned Rent Controller after consideration of the entire material on record rejected the said petition at SR stage itself holding that the said petition has been pressed into service vexatiously in order to frustrate the eviction order as confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.3569 of 1997. Assailing the said order dated 31-10-2001 made in E.A. (SR) No.2451 of 2001 the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N. Ashok Kumar, who contends that under Rule 23(7) of the Rules, it is mandatory to conduct an enquiry before passing an order in a claim made by a party. According to the learned counsel the order under Revision, which has been passed even before numbering the petition and in the absence of counter by the landlord is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the claim petitioner being one of the legal heirs of the original tenant succeeded to the tenancy rights of his late father and when he filed an application under Rule 23(7) of the Rules, the learned Rent Controller ought to have considered the same after conducting due enquiry as contemplated under Rule 23 (7).