JAGJIVANLAL Vs. SMT. LEELAVATHI RAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order for eviction was obtained by a landlord against a tenant under the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. When the plaintiff who was entrusted with the warrant of eviction went to execute the order, the present petitioner obstructed him, claiming that he was the tenant of the premises in his own right and not the judgment-debtor. The bailiff returned the warrant of eviction. When the matter was taken up by the Court, the decree-holder wanted that the warrant of eviction to be re-issued since there was no application by the petitioner before the Court claiming that he was a tenant in his own right and that the order could not be executed. The petitioner claimed that it was not necessary for him to file a separate petition and that under rule 23 of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules it was for the decree-holder to file a petition to remove the obstruction. The executing Court upheld the contention of the decree-holder and ordered re-issue of the order of eviction. In this civil revision petition Sri Babu Ram Dayal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was not necessary for the tenant to file a separate application under Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) , control Rules. Rule 23 (7) of the rules provides that if execution is resisted or obstructed by any personj other than the person against whom order of eviction is passed the Controller may hold a summary enquiry in to the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistence or obstruction is without any just cause, he shall issue a warrant to evict the said person etc. Rule 23 (7) does not refer to any application that should be made either by the decree-holder or by the judgment-debtor or by the obstructor. It is open to the decree-holder to make an application to remove the obstruction. It is open to the obstructor to file an application to protect his premises. It is also open to the Court to hold a summary enquiry on the basis of the report of the bailiff, even if no application is filed either by the decree-holder or by the judgment-debtor. I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct the lower Court to hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case as contemplated by Rule 23 (7) of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Rules and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.