S V RAMANAYYA Vs. V V A SANYASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Vizianagaram Where by he held that the order of the eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the basis of a compromise is inexecutable.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal or this revision petition briefly stated are these: The revision petitioner-landlord filed .A.B 7/71 on the file of the Rent Controller Vizianagaram for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the petition schedule premises was required for bis own business. In the enquiry by the Rent Controller, the landlord examined two witness and filed Exs. A- l to A-5. The tenant-respondent examined R, Ws. 1 to 3 disputing the claim of the landlord. No documentary evidence was however tendered by him. Thus after the trial the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge (Vizinagaram). While the appeal was pending the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise memo reads as follows;

(3.) An the tenant failed to vacate the premises by the stipulated dited of 11-8-1978 the landlord filed E.P.15 of 1978 in R.C.C:7 of 1971 for delivery of the possession of the petition schedule building and for realisation of the costs of the Execution Petition. The tenant resisted this Execution Petition on ground that the eviction order passed by the Appellate Court is inexecutable in-as-much as the said order emanated on account of a compromise and that the said compromise does not contain any specific admission of the tenant with regard to the existence of any statutory ground for eviction contempleled by Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Bent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Thus his contention was . that the compromise decree or order is not capable of execution. The learned Rent Controller referred to rulings including two rulings of the Supreme Court reported in K.K. Chart vs. R. M. Seshadri and Nagindas vs. Dalptram and held that the compromise eviction order is incapable of execution as it is a nullity in as much as in the order of the Appellate Court there is no specific mention of any admission of the existence of any statutoty ground contemplated by Section 10 of the Act, that enables the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant.