Mettela Sridevi vs Tanguturi Murali Krishna,
2022 Latest Caselaw 545 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.120 of 2022

ORDER:-

        The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1198 of 2006

before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against

the petitioner herein, who was the tenant of the respondent,

for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property.

This suit was decreed on 18.01.2010 directing the petitioner to

vacate the schedule property within two months. A.S.No.61 of

2010 filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree

was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

S.A.No.833 of 2016 filed against this order was dismissed on

18.11.2016.

2. The respondent had thereupon, filed E.P.No.9 of

2017, for executing the judgment and decree obtained by him.

While these proceedings were pending, the matter was settled

before the Lok-Adalat and the same was recorded in an Award,

dated 16.03.2017. As per the Award, the petitioner was to

vacate the premises by 14.01.2018. As she failed to honour

the said Award, the respondent herein again filed E.P.No.4 of

2018. The petitioner herein contested the said execution

petition by taking the ground that she was paying higher rates

of rent than what was mentioned in the Award and since the

respondent had accepted the said rent, she remains the

tenant of the respondent and cannot be evicted from the

property. She also took the plea that there was an

agreement/undertaking given by the respondent on

13.03.2017 to sell the schedule property to her for a sum of

Rs.1,71,00,000/- and as such, she cannot be evicted from the

property.

3. The petitioner, ostensibly for the purpose of

demonstrating her case set out in the counter, had filed

E.A.No.196 of 2019, for appointment of an advocate

commissioner, to record her evidence and cross examination.

This was allowed on 05.03.2020. However, the advocate

commissioner appointed under Order VI of C.P.C had returned

the warrant on 24.11.2021 as she had met with an accident

and was unable to execute the said warrant. Thereupon, the

petitioner herein moved E.A.No.140 of 2021 for appointment of

another advocate commissioner. However, this application

was rejected by the Executing Court on 06.01.2022. Aggrieved

by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by

way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that it was

essential for her evidence to be recorded in the Execution

Petition that, the respondent had given an undertaking to sell

the property; Acceptance of the rent by the respondent,

subsequent to the Award, shows that there is a relationship of

tenant and landlord between them; the terms of the Award did

not record the terms of the compromise properly and as such,

an Execution Petition on the basis of said Award is not

permissible.

5. The Executing Court took up each of these issues

and found that there was no necessity to adduce any evidence

for the Executing Court to take a decision on these issues.

The Executing Court also found that the petitioner had

suppressed certain vital information including the filing of

W.P.No.876 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P and

the dismissal of the said writ petition. After having considered

all these issues, the Executing Court found that there was no

necessity for recording any evidence of the petitioner herein for

arriving at a determination of the issues raised by the

petitioner herein and dismissed the application.

6. The Executing Court had relied upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra

Kumar Gandhi & Others (Civil Appeal Nos.1659-1660 of 2021

dated 22.02.2021), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

directed that "evidence should be taken in execution

proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the

question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other

expeditious method".

7. The Executing Court, applying the above principle,

considered the issues raised by the petitioner herein and held

that these issues do not require any evidence to be recorded.

8. The first contention raised by the petitioner was

that acceptance of rent would entail the petitioner to continue

in possession of the schedule property. The Executing Court

considered the contents of the Award of the Lok-Adalat dated

16.03.2017 and held that the said award itself provided for

payment of rent by the petitioner for a certain period with a

right to the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings against

the petitioner if she does not vacate the property by

14.01.2018. The Award also provided for payment of enhanced

rent after 14.01.2018, pending eviction of the petitioner by the

respondent. In view of these stipulations in the Award, the

Executing Court took the view that nothing further needs to be

adduced from the petitioner on this issue.

9. The 2nd issue raised by the petitioner was that she

had been paying all the rents regularly and there were no

arrears. The Executing Court took into account all the

receipts produced by the petitioner to conclude that the

petitioner had to still pay Rs.28,80,000/- to the respondent

and as such, further evidence would not be necessary on this

count. On the last question of whether the terms of the Award

recorded the terms of the compromise, the Executing Court

took note of the fact that the petitioner had initially filed

W.P.No.876 of 2018 challenging the Award of the Lok-Adalat

on similar grounds and that the High Court had rejected all

these grounds and dismissed the writ petition. The Court also

noticed the fact that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of

the filing of this writ petition.

10. In view of the detailed findings given by the

Executing Court and in view of the reasons given by the

Executing Court, as mentioned above, I do not find any

irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the Executing Court calling

for the interference of this Court.

11. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 01.02.2022 RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.120 of 2022

Date : 01.02.2022

RJS