EEDI ANJALI DEVI Vs. CHANGANTIPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent filed R.C.C. No. 147 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the 2nd respondent for eviction of the petition schedule premises and it was allowed on 27.01.1998. In pursuance thereof, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No. 11 of 1998. The revision petitioner filed a claim petition in E.A. No. 65 of 1998 in E.P. No. 11 of 1998 in R.C.C. No. 147 of 1996 under Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') seeking to enquire into the matter and dismiss the EP, on the grounds that the order passed in the rent control case is not binding on her and unenforceable against her, that the 1st respondent is not the landlord and owner of the petition schedule premises, that on 17.02.1997, she purchased the property from one Singavarapu Sitaravamma for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,02,000/- and she was put in possession of the property and she is enjoying the same by paying tax, and that her son, who is doing business in the petition schedule premises in the name and style "Bhavani Sai Motor Works", got mutated the property in the official records of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the EA and contending that the petitioner is no other than the wife of the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner's alleged vendor Singavarapu Sitaravamma is no other than his mother, that his mother executed a registered Deed of Settlement dated 27.06.1963 vide Ex. B.32 in his favour reserving the right to enjoy the income from the petition schedule premises and later she surrendered her limited right to enjoy the property during her life time in his favour, and that thereafter his mother executed an agreement on 31.01.1988 surrendering her life interest in respect of the property in his favour.

(2.) The 2nd respondent also filed counter stating that the 1st respondent had no right to execute the decree in the rent control case, that he already vacated the schedule premises and delivered vacant possession of it to the original landlady Smt. Singavarapu Sitaravamma one week prior to the registration of Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner, as such, he is no more tenant either to the 1st respondent or to Singavarapu Sitaravamma, and that he had nothing to do with the matter, as he vacated the schedule premises on 17.02.1997 i.e., before the order dated 27.01.1998 passed in the rent control case.

(3.) On her behalf, the revision petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A. 14 before the Rent Controller. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. B.1 to B. 33 were marked. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, dismissed the claim petition filed by the revision petitioner by order dated 09.06.2008. The same is questioned in this civil revision petition.