M SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. M PANAKALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision wide ranging questions touching the procedure as to the manner an order of "stay'' granted by an appellate authority has to be communicated under rule 5 or Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and what order, this court can pass under section 22 of Act XV of 1960 (the Act) and the amplitude of expression "thinks fit" was also debated, These questions arose when a tenantthe revision petitioner was ordered to be evicted in proceedings in A.B.A. No. 54 ot 1972 by the Rent Controller at Guntur on October, 14 1976 from the rented house at Ramachandrapuram Agrabaram in Guniur Municipality. The order of eviction was continued in appeal R.C.A. No. 27 of 1976 on March 8, 1979 and the tenant was directed to vacate the house on or before June, 8, 1979. The appellate order is the subject matter pending consideration m C.R.P. No. 2815. This court in C.M.P, No. 2952 of 1979 on May 29, 1979 ordered stay of all proceedings in the Court of the Rent Controller including eviction of the tenant. The landlords it is averred, "not knowing the stay" oider on May 29, 1979, lodged E.P. No. 349 ol 1979 on June 12, 1979 and applications E.A. No. 640 of 1979 to break open the lock of ihe premises and E.A. No. 641 of 1979 of obtaining assistance trom the local Police. The petitions were ordered on tne same day (Juae 12) by tne Rent Controller and in the instant order under revision it is found the tenant was evicted from the bouse before 1.00 P.M. on June 13,1979, and the order of stay dated May 29, 1979 it is flound to have been received in the office and is recorded as R. No. 853 against the date June 15, 1979. Tne other facts found in justification of the execution ot the order ot eviction requires to enumerate what transpired When the court leopeneu alter summer recesss on June 11, 1979.

(2.) The tenint lodged a memo in the office of the Rent Controller by Sri G.M.K.. Prasad, a Membsr of the Guniur Bar and Junior of the Senior Counsel who appeared for the tenant in R.C.A No. 27 of 1976. The memo contained information to the Court of the Rent controller that the appellate order dated March 8, 1979 was the subject in C.R.P. 2815 of 1979 in the High Court and further this court ordered "stay" in favour of the tenant in C.M.P. No. 5952 of 1979 on May 29, 1979 in particular inter-directing the execution of the order of eviction, This memo is lodged soon after the court reopend on June 11, 1979 after summer recess and that memo numbered as "15504". On that day the memo was filed along with papers as many as "782 papers i.e., plaints, petitions" in the court. The clerk assisting the Head clerk of the court received the memo and gave a number and recorded in C.R, 17 Register. The memo was handed over by the Head clerk to the Bench Clerk dealing with Rent Control applications on June 13, 1979. The landlords (as stated earlier) sought execution of eviction order in E.P. No, 349 of 1979 and that petition was lodged on June 12, 1979. The Bench Clerk obtained orders of the Rent Controller on the execution petition and for breaking open locks in E A. No. 641 of 1979 and for assistance of local police in the application E. No. 641 of 1979. The necessity for such an order on that day is not apparent. A "warrant" was handed over on June 12, 1979 to the Amin of the Court for execution. The Amin along with two process servers, village karnam and with two police Constables reached on the next day the house in question for execution. Thereupon the tenant's son by name RajendraPrasad rushed assistance to Sri. S L. Na ray ana Advocate who appeared for the tenant in some other proceedings (not in the instant Rent Control proceedings). Sri. S.L. Narayana was informed at 9.15 A.M. that notwithstanding the orders of the High Court, the Amin of the court and two Police Constables wete threatening to execute the warrant of delivery inspite of the orders of stay , of execution from the High Court and requested him to go over to bis house. Sri S. L. Narayana rushed to the house in question al 9. 30 A. M. and in an affidavit submitted later affirmed that he had perused the stay order contained in a carbon copy of High Court, informed the Amin, the decree-holders, the Police Constables the implication of the Stay order and informed them any execution of warrant of eviction in the circumstances is violative of the orders of the High Court and that in the court of the Rent Controller a memo on June 11, 1979 was lodged. Notwithstanding the information the Amin and the decree holders had stated" the Rent controller had passed order directing delivery of the house to the decree-holders and they are bound by that order" and no other. Sri S L, Narayana returned from there at 11.00 a.m. to the Court. The tenant at 1.45 P.M. on June 13, 1979 submitted application E A. No. 643 of 1979 to recall the execution warrant and at 4-15 P.M. E.A No. 646 of 1979 on the same day was filed to redeliver the premises to the tenant and on June 14, 1979 hied application E.A. No 646 of 1979 to redehver the house to the tenant. The Rent Controller in E A. No. 643 of 1979 records (in the order under revision) that he had recalled the order immediately and communicated the order to the Amin which reached the officer after 1.00 p.m.

(3.) The Rent Controller referred to the above facts and some other related facts which are not germane now and in the order on July 19,1979 under revision found: