The Execution Court's rejection of a petition under Section 47 of the CPC was justified due to the petitioners' inconsistent claims over property ownership and tenancy, indicating a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.

ORDER :

P.Sam Koshy, J.

Since the issue in these two Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.1200 of 2023 is filed assailing the docket order dated 11.04.2023, in E.A.S.R.No.4429 of 2023 in E.P.No.157 of 2023 in O.S.No.135 of 2006, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Similarly, Civil Revision Petition No.1651 of 2023 is also filed assailing the docket order dated 11.04.2023 in E.A.S.R.No.4422 of 2023, in E.P.No.157 of 2023, arising of the same suit i.e. O.S.No.135 of 2006, on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

4. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.1200 of 2023 are discussed herein under.

5. The whole issue germinates from a Civil suit that was filed way back in the year 2006 i.e. O.S.No.135 of 2006 by the respondent herein for declaration of title with delivery of possession, along with mesne profits and damages. After a prolonged litigation, the suit was finally decreed in favour of the respondent herein by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2014. The matter was thereafter subjected to challenge before the High Court by the petitioners herein vide City Civil Court Appeal No.17 of 2014 which too got dismissed on 04.01.2023. Subsequently, the decree holder preferred execution proceedings before the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad vide E.P.No.157 of 2023. In the said petition, an application was filed for grant of mesne profits which was allowed and the judgment debtor was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the suit for illegal use and occupation of the suit schedule property. In the said order, a warrant for delivery of possession was also issued on 04.04.2023. However, the bailiff could execute the warrant on 06.04.2023 due to illegal resistance put by the petitioners herein; the report of which was submitted by the bailiff to the concerned Court.

6. Pending the execution proceedings and issuance of warrant of possession, the judgment debtor i.e. the petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section 47 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short, the ‘CPC’) raising an objection so far as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to the dispute also the jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree.

7. As per the contention of the petitioners in the said application under Section 47 of CPC, they claim to have entered into the premises and are occupying the same in the capacity of tenants and since it was a landlord tenant dispute, the Civil suit was not the proper remedy for the decree holder and in terms of the provisions of the Telangana (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, a tenant can be evicted only in accordance with Sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Control Act and it is only the authority under the Rent Control Act or the Rent Control Court which has the jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction. Further, the contention of the petitioners was that the entire suit proceedings and the subsequent proceedings drawn thereafter are all nullity and void ab initio without jurisdiction.

8. Initially when the said application was filed under Section 47 of CPC the Execut