ORDER :

1. Smt. Anasuya, wife of K. Narasing Rao, 10th respondent in E.P. No. 7 of 2005 in RC No. 170 of 1994, had preferred CRP. No. 6990 of 2005 as against the order made by the Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad in the aforesaid E.P., dated 16-12-2005. Likewise 12th respondent-Venkateswar Rao, one of the sons of the said Narsing Rao, filed CRP. No. 6978 of 2005 questioning the selfsame order. Smt. Meghamala, daughter of Narsing Rao filed yet other CRP., viz., CRP. 6930 of 2005 questioning the self-same order. All these three CRPs are being disposed of by a common order since these CRPs are preferred by certain legal representatives of the deceased-Narsing Rao as against the self-same order and also in view of the fact that the objections raised and the contentions advanced on behalf of these revision petitioners in these CRPs being common.

2. Sri Vedula Venkataramana and Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy representing the revision petitioners in this batch of revisions made the following submissions: Contentions of Sri Vedula Venkataramana : Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel would maintain that the original tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings and however, one of his legal representatives no doubt in a different capacity had been on record and though the original tenant-Narsing Rao died, the legal representatives of the said Narsing Rao were not brought on record at the stage of CRP and the same was carried even to the Apex Court by Srisailam and the said Srisailam is sailing with the landlady and hence the said proceedings are collusive and at any rate not binding on the other legal representatives of Narsing Rao, who were not brought on record. Inasmuch as their rights would be seriously prejudiced, they raised objections relating to the executability of the eviction order which is said to have been obtained by the landlady and further it is said to have attained finality at the hands of the Apex Court. The Counsel would submit that if the eviction order is put into execution as against those parties only, absolutely these parties have no objection, but in the light of a Memo said to have been filed by the legal representatives by invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such parties cannot be brought on record in the execution petition filed by the decree holder-landlady and the said decree cannot be executed as against these legal representatives. The learned Counsel also would submit that this is a non-residential premises and hence there cannot be any severability of the action as between these legal representatives. The learned Counsel also would maintain that whenever the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder are silent, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable and hence it may have to be taken the proceedings so far as these legal representatives and the original tenant-Narsing Rao are concerned, to be deemed to have been abated and have no effect in the eye of law and to be treated as non-est. The learned Counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the Rent Control Rules and placed reliance on the decisions in V.D. Modi v. R.A. Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670 : AIR 1970 SC 1475, Mohd. Safdar Shareef (died) per LRs. v. Mohammed Ali (died) per LRs. 1993 (1) ALT 522 (DB) and G. Satyanarayana v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy, 1967 (2) An. WR 479. The learned Counsel also would maintain that when the legal representatives were not brought on record, an execution petition will not lie against such non-parties who were not brought on record and as against such parties, the execution cannot be proceeded with and these parties cannot be placed in a worse opposition when compared to that of strangers. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions on the aspect of jurisdiction of the Court, the nullity of a decree and the effect of non-brining of the legal representatives on record