HARIKISHAN Vs. BALAKISHAN PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the dismissal of C.M.A No. 366. of 1979 by our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J., 1979 (2) A. L. T 358. The appellant is the judgment-debtor No. 2 in O.S. No. 596 of 1971 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That was a suit filed for specific performance and recovery of possession of a building on the basis of an agreement for sale executed in favour of the respondent herein. The appellant was impeded therein as 2nd defendant. He was occupying the building in question as a tenant and that building was one to which the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rent Control Act") apply. The 2nd defendant however, pleaded that he had purchased the property from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13-10-1971 for a consideration of Rs. 17000/-. The plaintiff averred that this purchase by the 2nd defendant was with notice of prior agreement for sale in his favour and on that footing sought not only specific performance of the agreement for sale but also recovery of possession from both the defendants. That suit was decreed on 23.8.1976. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court in C. C. C. A. No. 154 of 1976 and our learned brother Kuppuswamy, J., dismissed the appeal. That dismissal was upheld in L. P. A. No. 67/78. An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. The Supreme Court also dismissed an application for grant of special leave and the judgment of our learned brother Kuppuswamy, J., as confirmed in L. P. A. No. 67/68 has become final.

(2.) The respondent applied for execution of the decree. As the defendants did not comply with the decree, the court executed a sale deed on behalf of both the defendants. The court also directed delivery of possession. A sale deed was executed in his favour on 23-12-1978 and was registered on 29-12-1978. The 2nd defendant filed a counter to the E.P. and also E.A.No. 200/78 on 30-12-78, seeking review of the draft sale deed filed by the plaintiff for approval by the executing court. It may he stated at this stage that no objections to the draft sale deed were preferred and the draft sale deed was approved by the executing court on 21-11-1978. The executing court dismissed E.A.No. 200/78. Against the said order the judgment debtor No. 2 the Appellant herein filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3475/79 as also C.M.A.No. 366/79. The learned single Judge held that the C.M.A was misconceived and not maintainable and he accordingly dismissed the same. He considered the Civil Revision Petition on merits and held that, the Judgment-debtor not having objected to the draft sale deed for more than six months and the same having been approved by the executing Court E.A.No. 200/78 filed on 30-12-1978 seeking a review of the order approving the draft sale deed deserves to be rejected and he accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision Petition also.

(3.) It is now contended on the basis of certain observations-made by our learned brother Kuppuswamy, J., that the appellant cannot be evicted in execution of the decree inasmuch as he is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960. It is his case that the building in question is one to which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction). Control Act 1960 apply and inasmuch as lie was in possession of that building as a tenant before he purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 13-10-1971 and that sale deed has now been held to be invalid and the suit for specific performance has been decreed, his status as that of a tenant is revived and he continues to enjoy the protection of the Rent Control Act. That contention has been rejected and in our opinion rightly so.