AZEM MOHD Vs. GUSTA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant, who suffered an order of eviction in R.C.No. 213 of 1987 and R.C.No. 643 of 1989. The petitioner failed in the appeals as well as in the revisions before this Court. The revision petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Actweredismissed by my learned brother A.S.Bhate, J.on 29-2-1996 by a common judgment. While disposing of the revisions, there was no order granting time to the tenant for vacating the premises. It appears that on the next day i.e. on 1-3-1996, an oral request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking directions for grant of reasonable time to vacate the premises. Accordingly the C.M.Ps. were posted 'for being mentioned' on 4-3-1996 i.e. the next working day. On 4-3-1996 the following order was passed by the learned Judge:-

(2.) While so the respondents-landlords filed a petition before the Principal Rent Controller to advance the execution petition, which stood adjourned to 6-6-1996. It may be mentioned that the execution petition was filed on 28-12-1995. It was called on two occasions. On 1-2-1996 the execution petition was adjourned to 6-6-1996 in view of the order of stay granted by the High Court. On 1-3-1996 i.e., on the very next day after the C.R.Ps. were dismissed, the respondents-landlords filed a petition to advance the execution petition and to pass orders for execution of the order of eviction and to direct the Bailiff to hand over the vacant possession by evicting the petitioner. A letter addressed by the learned Counsel for the respondents who appeared in the CRPs in the High Court was filed along with the petition. The said application was allowed and the following order was passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad on 1st March, 1996:

(3.) On 2-3-1996 an eviction warrant was issued by the Rent Control Court, which inter alia authorised the Bailiff to break open the lock if any put to the premises and to take police assistance if necessary. According to the report of Bailiff, the execution took place by about 1-20 P.M. on 4-3-1896 and the possession was handed over to the respondents after keeping the articles in the house aside. The receipt showing delivery of possession and a panchanama attested by the panchas and the affidavits of two persons who acted as panchas were also filed along with the report.