Tenants filed civil revisions resisting execution of eviction orders. They argued that property vesting in the Government suspended the respondents' rights. The Court held that final eviction orders cannot be resisted by parties and dismissed the petitions.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3093, 3094 AND 3095 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
These three revisions are filed by three different tenants of the same family, which held the properties as owners. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
The respondents filed R.C.Nos.23 of 2009, 232 and 227 of 2008 respectively, before the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein for eviction and recovery of possession. It was pleaded that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises and they committed willful default in payment of rents. After contest, the trial Court allowed the Rent Control Cases on different dates in the years 2008 and 2009. No appeals were filed against the orders of eviction and thereby the orders became final.
The respondents filed Execution Petitions for enforcing the orders of eviction. At that stage, the petitioners filed Execution Applications under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. raising objections. According to them, the respondents ceased to be the owners of the property on account of the initiation of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) and in that view of the matter, the Execution Petitions cannot be maintained at all. The respondents opposed the applications by filing counters. The Executing Court rejected the applications through separate orders, dated 28.07.2011. Hence, these three revisions.
Heard Sri S. Rama Chandra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V. V. Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents.
It is a matter of record that the orders of eviction passed against the petitioners assumed finality, since no appeals were filed. The respondents have put the orders to execution. The only basis for the petitioners to resist the execution proceedings is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notifications under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act and thereby the property stood vested in the Government. The defence of the respondents was that though a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued, the same was suspended through an order, dated 25.09.2012 by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.38158 of 2012 in W.P.No.29896 of 2012.
The two grounds militate against the petitioners. The first is that they have suffered an order of eviction and they cannot question the right of the respondents to put the order of eviction to execution. In case, the order of eviction suffered from any legal or factual infirmity, the only option open to them was to challenge the same by way of an appeal or revision. As long as the order of eviction stands, the petitioners, who are none other than the judgment debtors, can not resist the execution. If at all, it is only the persons, who are not the parties to the decree, that can raise such objection.
The second is that the various notifications issued under the Act would lead to several legal consequences. The petitioners would not derive any right out of such consequences. Even, where the land is vested in Government, the petitioners did not automatically become owners of the property. At any rate, the notification that was issued under Section 3(2) of the Act was suspended by this Court.
Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these Civil Revision
Petitions shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
25.04.2013 Nvl/kh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether tenants can resist execution of eviction orders based on subsequent vesting notifications under the AP Slum Improvement Act.
Whether suspension of vesting notifications by this Court affects the finality of eviction orders against the tenants.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tenants of the same family
Respondents
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
