IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TEN ONLY PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3164 OF 2010 Between: Smt.Allu Sarada Naidu …Petitioner A n d Devaguptapu Vijaya Ramaraju ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3164 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-06-2010 in E.P.No.144 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the petition filed by the respondent/decree holder under Order XXI Rule 36 CPC for delivery of EP schedule property, was ordered, directing delivery by 27-07-2010. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The respondent/decree holder filed R.C.C.No.2 of 2007 seeking eviction of the petitioner/judgment debtor. By order dated 18-06-2010, the said application was allowed and eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.1of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also filed I.A.No.325of 2010 for stay of the operation of the orders passed in the RCC. It is stated that the said appeal and also the interlocutory application for stay are pending before the appellate authority, but no interim stay was granted. Meanwhile, the respondent filed E.P.No.144 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2007 and said the EP was ordered directing delivery of the property by 27- 07-2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/JDr would contend that the respondent/DHr has been taking time for filing counter in I.A.No.325of 2010 before the appellate authority and simultaneously filed EP for delivery and in the event of delivery being effected, the purpose of filing appeal would get defeated. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/DHr, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner/JDr was in arrears of rent from January, 2006 onwards and without paying the arrears of rent, the JDr sought stay of the operation of the orders passed in the RCC and, therefore, the respondent/DHr filed EP for the purpose of executing the decree for eviction. 6. Inasmuch as there is no interim stay granted by the appellate authority, the DHr was within his right to file EP and seek execution of the decree for eviction. The learned counsel for the respondent/DHr would submit that delivery of the property is already effected. The learned counsel for the petitioner/JDr states that the delivery of the property is not so far effected. 7. As the application for grant of stay, pending disposal of the appeal, is already filed and the same is pending before the appellate authority in I.A.No.325 of 2010, it is only just and proper that necessary orders are passed on the stay application by the appellate authority. As the said application is already pending before the appellate authority, the proper course for the petitioner/JDr would be to approach the said appellate authority and seek appropriate orders. However, in view of the fact that delivery of possession is ordered to be effected by 27-07- 2010, it is considered that further proceedings pursuant to the delivery warrant issued under the impugned order be stayed for a period of two weeks from today. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the application for stay i.e., I.A.No.325 of 2010 without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two weeks from today. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd July, 2010 Note:: CC by 26-07-2010 Lrkm.