THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 2165 of 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dt. 19.2.2010 in E.A.No. 19 of 2006 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001 in R.C.No. 240 of 1998 passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the above E.A. filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. claiming the E.P. schedule property. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. The 2nd respondent is the tenant of 1st respondent in respect of a non-residential premises (mulgi) bearing No. 10-3-291/1/C/B situated at Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent filed R.C.No. 240 of 1998 seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent before the II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and that the learned II Additional Rent Controller, after trial of the case ordered eviction of the 2nd respondent from the mulgi in question. Against the Judgement and decree of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent filed R.A.No. 261 of 2000 before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed. Against the Judgement of the 1st Appellate Court, the 2nd respondent filed C.R.P.No. 2398 of 2001 before this Court and the said C.R.P. was also dismissed by this Court on 8.6.2001. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller has become final. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner filed O.S.No. 840 of 1996 before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking specific performance of agreement of sale against the 1st respondent alleging that the 1st respondent agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him and the said suit was dismissed on 30.4.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgement and decree of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad the revision petitioner filed A.S.No. 584 of 2004 before the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed on 30.7.2008. During the pendency of the suit O.S.No. 840 of 1996, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No. 23 of 2001 in R.C.No. 240 of 1998 to execute the order of eviction against the 2nd respondent since he failed to vacate the premises even after lapse of time granted in C.R.P. No. 2398 of 2001. While so, the petitioner herein filed objection petition EA (SR) No. 2116 of 2001 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001 claiming to be the tenant/agreement holder and also EA (SR) No. 2117 of 2001 for stay of warrant issued in E.P. Both the applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 14.9.2001. Against the said orders, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No. 4207 of 2001 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 2.11.2011. In E.P.No. 23 of 2001, the executing court issued warrant for delivery of possession of the mulgi as per plan Ex:P.7 and as per the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and that when the bailiff went to execute the same, it was noticed that the 2nd respondent made some internal constructions. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed E.A.No. 4 of 2002 for a direction to the 2nd respondent to hand over vacant possession of the mulgi as per plan Ex:P.7 by dismantling the illegal construction made by him. The learned II Additional Rent Controller dismissed E.A.No. 4 of 2002 on 30.9.2002. Against said order, the 1st respondent filed C.R.P.Nos. 4992 and 4993 of 2002 before this Court and this Court allowed the said C.R.Ps., and directed the court below to dispose of E.A.No. 4 of 2002 afresh. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No. 4 of 2006 in E.A.No. 4 of 2002 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the property bearing Municipal Nos. 10-3-291/1/A, 291/1/B/1 and 291/A/3 of Vijaynagar colony, Hyderabad and to find out the whether the property in dispute is in accordance with the plan Ex:P.7 and also to note down the new constructions allegedly made. The said E.A. was allowed by the order dt. 3.2.2006 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report on 15.2.2006. After the Advocate Commissioner submitted his report, the petitioner herein filed claim petition in E.A.No. 19 of 2006 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001 claiming to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 10-3-291/1/C/B on the ground that he purchased the same from one Shahnaz Fatima in the year 1994. The said claim petition was dismissed after holding trial, by the order dt. 19.2.2010, against which the present C.R.P. is filed. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent who has been unsuccessful throughout got filed the claim petition by the petitioner who is no other than his own brother and causing obstruction to the execution of the warrant with a view to defeat his rights. The learned executing court after appreciating the entire evidence on record and after hearing both sides held that the claim of the revision petitioner is false and that he has no locus standi to file the claim petition and accordingly dismissed the same by the order under revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, there is a discrepancy relating to vacant site adjacent to the schedule premises and therefore a Commissioner may be appointed to ascertain whether the property claimed by the petitioner is a part of schedule premises or a separate property. In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain findings recorded by the learned II Additional Rent Controller in E.A.No. 19 of 2006 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001. The learned Rent Controller had categorically held that though the revision petitioner claimed the schedule property, he did not file any registered sale deed showing that he is the owner of the property. Admittedly, in the eviction petition filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent, he also sought eviction of the petitioner from the adjacent premises also. The learned Rent Controller further noticed that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden to establish that he is the owner of the property in dispute and that he also did not take any steps to get surveyed the property with the help of a qualified surveyor. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller came to a positive conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner is false. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 23 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules 1961 reads as under: “If such execution is resisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom the order of eviction was passed, the Controller may hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance and obstruction still continues shall issue a warrant to evict the said person by force and deliver possession of the building to the person entitled for possession in pursuance of the order of eviction, and if he is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom the order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in the possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom the order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person.” On a reading of the above rule, it is clear that the executing court while deciding a claim petition under Rule 23, is not supposed to make a detailed and elaborate enquiry into the title and decide the same. If there is any dispute with regard to title, the party seeking such a relief has to approach a competent civil court. The enquiry contemplated under Sub- rule (7) of Rule 23 is only a summary enquiry to find out whether any obstruction was caused by any third party without any just cause and that if the executing court is satisfied that the obstruction was without any just cause, then it will proceed to execute the decree and deliver possession of the property to the petitioner in the execution petition. In the instant case, after making an enquiry into the claim petition filed by the revision petitioner, the executing court had categorically held that the claim made by the petitioner is false and the said petition was filed only with a view to cause obstruction to the execution proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent. The findings arrived at by the learned executing court are based on evidence and this court is not supposed to interfere, with such findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons mentioned above, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the executing court are either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in E.A.No. 19 of 2006 in E.P.No. 23 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 07.06.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 2165 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 07.06.2011