( 1 ) THIS revision petition, filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code ) raises an interesting question as to whether an order passed under Section 11 (4) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for brevity the Act ) is executable in accordance with Section 15 of the said Act?

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner is the owner of a non- residential premises in Vizianagaram Town. The same was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 250. 00 in June, 1973, and later the rent was enhanced to rs. 900/ -. The petitioner filed Rent Control case being RCC No. ll of 1999 on the file. of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent controller, Vizianagaram, for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of wilful default, bona fide requirement for personal occupation, and on the ground that the respondent used the building for purpose other than for which it was leased. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application being LA. No. 1389 of 1999 praying to stop all further proceedings in rcc No. ll of 1999, and make an order directing the respondent to vacate the demised shop room and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner. The said application was contested by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller, by order dated 8-11-2000, allowed the said application and directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent from the month of november, 1998 till the date of passing the said order, on or before 27-11-2000, and in default to vacate the premises.

( 3 ) THE respondent appears to have failed to comply with the order dated 8-11-2000 passed by the Rent Controller in IA No. 1389 of 1999. He, therefore, filed an application on 27-11-2000 under Section 148 of the Code seeking enlargement of time to comply with the orders passed in IA No. 1389 of 1999. The learned Rent Controller while disposing of the said application, passed an order directing the eviction of the respondent from the schedule premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the High Court under Section 33 of the A. P. Civil Courts act, 1972 by filing Receive and Transmit application. He also prayed for suspension of the order passed in RCC No. ll of 1999, dated 27-11-2000. This Court by order dated 9-1-2001, passed in CMP No. 161 of 2001 suspended the operation of the order dated 27-11-2000 passed by the Rent Controller in rcc No. ll of 1999. The matter therefore stood transmitted to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, who is the appellate authority under Section 20 of the rent Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed execution petition under Section 15 of the Rent Act in RCC no. ll of 1999 seeking to execute the order dated 8-11-2001 passed in IA No. 1389 of 1999. The said EP was not registered, and it was assigned EPGR No. 863 of 2001. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the epgr at the threshold holding that EP is not maintainable in view of the order dated 9-1-2001, passed by the High Court in CMP no. 168 of 2001, suspending the order dated 27-11-2000, passed by the learned Rent controller in RCC No. 11 of 1999. This order is assailed under Section 115 of the Code in this CRP.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sri. G. Venkateshwara Rao submits that an order passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act is an executable order, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Rent controller, is vitiated by error. He further submits that even an order passed under section 11 (4) of the Act for non-payment of rent, as directed by the Court, can be said to be an order under Section 10 of the Act, falling squarely within the ambit of section 15 of the Rent Act.

( 6 ) SRI Sesha Sai, learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant submits that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not an order passed under Section 11 (4) of the rent Act, but 9ne passed under Section 10 thereof. He submits that since the o