R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed questioning the orders of the IV Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad dated 8-9-1994 passed in E. A. No. 12/1994 in E. P. No. 12/1994 in R. C. No. 1572 of 1986.

( 2 ) THE present revision petitioner is the tenant of the disputed premises relating to which R. C. No. 1572 of 1986 was filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant. The landlords who filed eviction petition are Chillampalle venkatesam who is the first respondent herein and C. Krishna who were brothers. The rent control case was allowed ordering the eviction of the present petitioner who was the tenant. Subsequently an appeal was filed in R. A. No. 251 of 1987 on the file Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad by the tenant and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved of that order, the tenant again filed c. R. P. 3173 of 1991 questioning the orders of the appellate Court and it was also dismissed on 12-4-1993 thereby confirming the orders of the Rent controller. During the pendency of these rent control proceedings, one of the landlords, by name, C. Venkatesam appears to have gifted away his half share in the premises to his wife, by name, C. Sarojini who is the second respondent herein. The other half of the demised premises belonged to C. Krishna and he appears to have sold away his half share of the demised premises under an agreement of sale to one Yadagiri when the rent control proceedings were pending before the appellate Court. After the C. R. P. filed in the High Court was disposed of C. Venkatesam, who was one of the landlords of the premises and his wife Sarojini in whose favour he had executed the gift deed relating to his half share filed E. P. No. 12 of 1994 against the present petitioner who is the tenant for delivery of possession of half share in the property which belonged to him and in which the petitioner tenant is continuing as tenant. When the execution petition was pending the present petitioner who is the tenant filed E. A. No. 12 of 1994 contending that C. Krishna who was having half share in the property had executed an agreement of sale in his favour and in view of such agreement of sale he had become owner of the property; that the decree passed in the rent control petition was for the entire premises including half share belonging to C. Krishna, that such decree passed relating to the entire property cannot be executed relating to half share in that property and that therefore the execution petition is not maintainable and it cannot be executed in respect of half share which is sold to him under the agreement of sale. The said petition in E. A. No. 12 of 1994 was filed under Rule 23 (7) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules 1961.

( 3 ) THE respondents herein, who were also the respondents in E. A. No. 12/94, contested the said petition contending that the property was already partitioned into two shares and C. Krishna who was entitled for half share is said to have sold away his half share to the petitioner while the other half share which belonged to them is also in the possession of the petitioner as tenant, that even though the decree was obtained for eviction relating to the entire demised premises if can be executed regarding the half share for which they were still entitled and which is also in possession of the petitioner as tenant and that therefore the execution petition has to be ordered and e. A. 12/94 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing the material on record the lower court came to the conclusion that E. A. 12/94 filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under Rule 23 (7) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Rules, 1961, that such objection raised by the petitioner regarding the executability of the decree for eviction relating to the half of the demised premises is not maintainable and that therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed. He accordingly dismissed E. A. No. 12 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document