Decided on August 13,1971



- (1.) This petition is to revise the order of the Principal District Munsif Visakhapatnam directing the removal of the respondent in E A No.22/58 in E P No.24/67 from the premises Door No 14/38 in Chintakayalavari Veedhi at Visakhapatnam as an obstructor.
(2.) Having obtained an order of eviction in H R C No.71/64 the landlord filed E P No.24/67 and when he was executing the order through court for taking possession of the building one Addepalli Chenna Kesavarao with some of his servants obstructed the Amin from delivering the property and thereupon the landlord filed the petitioner E A No.22,68 for removing the obstructor, contending that the said Chenna Kesavarao is the grand-nephew of his tenant Addepalli Harischandrudu who died that he had obtained the order of eviction against the widow of Harischandrudu, that the said Chenna Kesava Rao is bound by the order of delivery and requested the court to order delivery after removing the obstructor.
(3.) The obstructor filed a counter stating that the proceedings in H R C No.71/64 are collusive and fraudulent, that the respondent in E P Mrs. A. K. Harischandrudu was never a tenant of the premises and did not reside in the premises for several years since her husband's death, that the eviction order passed against her is wholly illegal void and unenforceable, that the premises was taken on lease over 31 years ago by Saraswathi Power Press, Rajahmandry for locating its branch at Visakhapatnam, that Addepalli Harischandrudu was the then Manager, in charge, that even at present the same tenant Sarasawathi Power Press, Rajahmundry is continuing and has been in possession of the premises that the petitioner had been receiving rents from them as his tenant throughout and he is estopped from contending otherwise that this fact had been suppressed by the petitioner and the order of eviction had been obtained fraudulently and therefore it is not binding on him as he has been in possession in his own right and hence this application has to be dismissed. On these contentions, the District Munsif on a consideration of the evidence found that the obstructor was not the original tenant and that he did not come into possession in his own right that the obstructor is only a sub-tenant and as such he is not a necessary party. It was also contended that on a prior occasion E. P, 6/65 was filed as there was obstruction but no application for removal of obstruction was filed and at this stage a new execution petition filed for delivery is not maintainable. This contention was overruled. The further contention that the E. P. was time-barred was also negatived. Hence this petition by the respondent the alleged obstructor.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.