C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-3-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein to recall the warrant for delivery of the property issued on 2-3-1998 in E. P. No. 7 of 98 in R. C. C. No. 2 of 97. For proper appreciation of the question involved, the facts leading to the C. R. P. may be briefly stated.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises situate in Vijayawada town. The petitioner filed RCC 491 of 96 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada under Section 12 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) seeking an order for recovery of possession of the demised premises on the ground that it is bona fide required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new premises. By an order passed by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act, the said R. C. C. was transferred to the file of the Rent Controller, Nandigama on 12-3-1997 and renumbered as RCC No. 2 of 97. On 14-3-1997 a decree was passed in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties according to which the tenant should vacate the premises within one week, the landlord should complete the construction of the new building within eight months from the date of delivery and provide a shop to the tenant on the south-east corner of the newly constructed building on a monthly rent of Rs. 1375-00. The respondent-tenant, however, failed to vacate the premises within the time stipulated. On 31-3-1997, the landlord filed an execution petition before the Rent Controller, Nandigama, for executing the said decree, who returned the same on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to entertain the same. The execution petition was, however, represented by the landlord stating that the Rent Controller, Nandigama, has jurisdiction to execute the decree passed by him. While so, on 5-4-1997 the tenant vacated the schedule premises and delivered possession of the same to the landlord on an undertaking by the landlord to redeliver the premises of the same plinth area i. e. , 93 sq. feet on the south-east corner facing on the Shivalayam street within eight months to the tenant as per the terms of the compromise decree. A joint memo dated 5-4-1997 to that effect duly signed by both parties and their counsel was filed into Court.

( 3 ) ON 17-12-1997 the tenant gave a notice to the landlord stating that even though the construction of the new building was completed, the landlord has not offered the room promised to be delivered to him and calling upon the landlord to give the said room to him as per the joint memo dated 5-4-1997. The landlord sent a contentious reply dated 21-12-1997 refusing to deliver the said room to the tenant. On the contrary, the landlord filed O. S. No. 201 of 98 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for a permanent injunction and obtained an interim order in I. A. No. 98 of 98 to maintain the status quo.

( 4 ) ON 21-2-1998 the tenant in his turn filed E. P. No. 45 of 98 in RCC 491 of 96 before the Rent Controller, Nandigama, for delivery of the room to him as per the joint memo dated 5-4-1997. It appears that on the same date, the Rent Controller, Nandigama, passed an order thereon transferring the decree for execution to the Court of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, as the property is within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada. Pursuant to the said order, the tenant filed E. P. No. 7 of 98 in the Court of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada for delivery. The Rent Controller, Vijayawada, ordered delivery on 2-3-1998 without issuing any notice to the landlord. On 5-3-1998 when the bailiff went to effect delivery, the landlord obstructed and the plaintiff could not execute the warrant. On the same date the landlord filed the instant application E. A. No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document