JALANDHAR S N Vs. K SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners assail the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, in E.A.No. 32/1998 in E.P.No. 36/1995 in R.C.No. 197/1987. The first respondent herein filed E.A.No. 32/1998. The facts inter alia in a narrow compass are as follows.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed R.C.No. 197/1987 seeking eviction of the second respondent herein. R.C.No.197/1987 was allowed while ordering eviction. Appeal filed thereon and also the revision petition filed before the High Court have been disposed of. Eventually the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller was confirmed. Then the first respondent sought to evict the second respondent by filing E.P.No. 36/1995. When the Bailiff of the Court went to carry out the order, there was an obstruction from the revision petitioners and therefore, the warrant could not be executed. The first respondent herein, therefore, filed the petition under Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 for removal of the obstruction.

(3.) The case of the first respondent inter alia in the petition is that there is only one premises bearing No. 10.5.105 and there is no separate premises bearing No. 10.5.105A and that the revision petitioners' obstruction was set up by the second respondent-judgment-debtor. That petition was resisted by the revision petitioners as well as the second respondent-judgment- debtor. As can be seen from the respective counters filed by them, it is their plea inter alia that the premises bearing No. 10.5.105A is different, wherein the revision petitioners have been residing. Therefore, the obstruction is in good faith. During the course of enquiry two witnesses have been examined on the side of the petitioner- landlady and documents Exs. P-1 to P-7 have been got marked. On the side of the obstructors, five witnesses have been examined and documents Exs. R-1 to R-14 have been got marked. Exs. X-1 and X-2 have been got marked through the witness R.W. 4. On the side of the Court, C.W. 1 Commissioner has been examined and the documents Exs. C-1 to C-10 have been got marked. Upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary the Execution Court has come to a conclusion that there is no promises with Door No. 10.5.105A in existence. With that finding, ultimately the Court has ordered obstruction to be removed. That is now being impugned in this revision petition by the two obstructors. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners are two fold to wit;