A third-party claimant in possession of premises cannot obstruct eviction proceedings against a tenant unless they establish an independent jural relationship of landlord and tenant; mere occupation as an employee or sub-tenant of the judgment-debtor entails being bound by the eviction order.

O R D E R

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Rent Controller Act, 1960 aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2020 in E.A.No.22 of 2011 in E.P.No.7 of 2011 in R.C.No.423 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkatarama, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sridhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Aadesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, who is a claim petitioner and a third party to the proceedings in R.C.No.423 of 2007 and E.P.No.7 of 2011, has filed the present claim petition under Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules 1961, seeking to allow the claim petition and dismiss the E.P. by declaring the eviction order dated 24.01.2011 passed in R.C.No.423 of 2007 as null, void, inoperative and not binding on the claim petitioner. It is contended that the claim petitioner has been in possession of the E.P. schedule property as on the date of filing of the execution petition.

5. The claim petitioner further contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with respondent No.3, obtained the eviction order in R.C.No.423 of 2007. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3 entered into a compromise on 24.01.2011, wherein respondent No.3 agreed to vacate and hand over possession of the property to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the eviction petitioners, filed E.P.No.7 of 2011 seeking eviction of the judgment-debtor/respondent No.3 therein, who is shown as the sole J.D.R. in the execution petition.

6. It is further contended that the claim petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the E.P. schedule property bearing Municipal Nos.22-6-178 and 22-6-193/4, situated at Pathargatti, Hyderabad, wherein he has been carrying on business of readymade garments under the name and style of “M/s. Fashion Corner,” as proprietor, for the last eight years in the said premises.

7. The claim petitioner further contended that he had been paying rents to the original landlord at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for each floor and had also paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pagdi to the landlord. It is further stated that the tenancy was oral in nature and that rents were being paid without obtaining receipts. The claim petitioner further asserted that he had paid rents up to date to the landlord through his agent/rent collector.

8. It is also contended that the claim petitioner had been paying the electricity charges in respect of the schedule property and was in possession of the electricity bills and receipts evidencing such payments. It is further stated that he had availed temporary additional power supply during the month of Ramzan in the year 2009 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,000/- with electricity board. The claim petitioner further contended that he had paid the requisite license fee and obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation, besides poss