CHEKKA RAGHURAM Vs. DENDUKURI MURALI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision though preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, is, in fact, a revision seeking to challenge the order of the learned Rent Controller cum Junior Civil Judge, Tuni in E. P. No. 63 of 1999 in r. C. C. No. 10 of 1998. Under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') a revision is provided under Section 22 of the Act. This revision is, therefore, being treated as one under Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the landlord whereas the respondent herein is the tenant of the premises bearing No. 4-11-39, Tuni, East Godavari District and carrying on business in running a sweet shop since 1989. The petitioner and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.

(3.) THE facts, which gave to rise to the present proceedings, are as follows: (a) The landlord sought eviction of the tenant and called upon the tenant to vacate the premises under legal notice dated 21. 05. 1998. The tenant replied to the said notice on 10. 06. 1998 denying all allegations. The tenant apprehended highhanded eviction and therefore, filed O. S. No. 85 of 1998 before the Junior civil Judge, Tuni for injunction. The tenant, thereafter, filed R. C. C. No. 5 of 1998 before the Junior Civil Judge cum Rent Controller, Tuni under Section 8 of the Act seeking to deposit the rents. The landlord, thereafter, filed r. C. C. No. 10 of 1998 seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 12 (1) of the Act seeking directions to deliver the possession of the petition schedule premises. The said R. C. C. No. 10 of 1998 was referred to Lok Adalat and as both parties consented, on 19. 12. 1998 the Lok Adalat passed an award under section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The terms of the award are as follows: award under Sec. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 1]. The respondent agreed to vacate the premises on 31. 12. 1998. The Petitioner agreed to re-allot the premises with 40' x 15' shop by 31. 03. 1999. 2]. The new construction measurements were reduced in view of the plan approved by the Municipality. 3]. The respondent agreed to pay previous rent for 3 years. 4]. In view of the compromise in R. C. C. No. 5 of 1998 is withdrawn. The petitioner agreed to receive future rents by enhancing 20% on the rent existed for continuously 3 years. As per the award, the tenant vacated the premises on 31. 12. 1998 and thereafter, the landlord has carried out the construction, which now comprises of several shops as per the plan. (b) While taking upon the said reconstruction, however, it is common case of the parties that the place where the tenant's shop existed earlier is now left out as open space for parking and in the rest of the area, shopping complex is constructed. Since the tenant was to be put in possession of reconstructed shop of the dimension 40' x 15' as per clause (1) of the award of the Lok Adalat, by 31. 03. 1999, the tenant filed execution petition in E. P. No. 63 of 1999 on 18. 06. 1999 requesting the executing Court/learned Rent Controller to appoint an Advocate commissioner to take possession of the property and to direct to reconstruct the building under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner at the cost of the tenant and restitute the possession of the tenant. Questioning the maintainability of said EP the landlord filed CRP. No. 3049 of 1999 before this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said CRP the landlord urged the contention that in view of G. O. Ms. No. 636 dated 29. 12. 1983 any building on construction is exempted from the provisions of the Act for a period of 10 years and as such the executing Court had no jurisdiction. The said CRP was contested and by order of this Court dated 27. 09. 1999 the CRP was dismissed leaving it open for the landlord and the tenant to raise their respective objections before the executing Court and directing the executing court to dispose of the EP. Though time was stipulated by the said order the impugned order herein came to be passed on 20. 11. 1999 by allowing the EP. Questioning the said order the present revision is preferred by the landlord.