V SURYANARAYANA Vs. SITARAMA CHIT FUND CO
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 24,1992

VANKAYALA SURYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
SITARAMA CHIT FUND COMPANY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

LINGAIAH KISTAIAH CHENNAIAH VS. CH VENKATESHAM [LAWS(APH)-1997-6-33] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition is filed by two auction purchasers in execution of a mortgage decree. The 1st respondent has obtained a money decree in O.S.No.80 of 1971 on the file of Sub-Court, Rajahmundry based upon an equitable mortgage dt.11-12-1969 executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent. The revision petitioners obtained transfer of the mortgage decree in their favour and with the permission of the Court they have participated in the Court sale held on 10-4-1979 and were the highest bidders. Just a day prior to the sale, i.e., on 9-4-1979, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.256 of 1979 requesting that the intending bidders might be appraised of the fact that the petition schedule premises was under the lease-hold rights. The execution court dismissed that petition on the ground that it is a befated petition and that the lease is subject to mortgage. Challenging the order in E.A.No.256 of 1979 the 3rd respondent filed C.R.P. No.3172 of 1979. Muktadar J., has dismissed that petition on 27-2-1980 observing that the 3rd respondent can seek the assistance of the civil court, if so advised and if his objections are maintainable, and holding that those objections cannot be considered in the revision petition.
(2.)The 3rd respondent filed R.C.C.No.86 of 1984 and the 4th respondent filed R.C.C.No, 89 of 1984 impleading the decree holder, the judgment debtor and the court auction purchasers for a declaration that they shall not be evicted in execution of the decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10,12 and 13 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both those cases were dismissed on the ground that the. Rent Controller is not competent to grant such a relief. Respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4 filed R.C.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 1983 and the auction purchasers filed cross-objections. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals and allowed the cross-objections holding that the right of commencement of tenancy shall be determined only by the civil court, but, not by the Rent Controller. 3rd and 4th respondent filed C.R.P. Nos.2823 and 2824 of 1987 and they were dismissed on 16-3-1990.
(3.)Thereupon the petitioners herein filed E.A.No.46 of 1984 under Order XXI, Rule 95 C.P.C. seeking physical delivery of the suit property after ejecting respondents 2 to 4 there from, claiming that by virtue of the leases in their favour they cannot be evicted except under due process of law as provided under the Act and that the auction purchasers are not entitled for physical delivery of the suit property.
;


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