THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3989 OF 2011 30.11.2011 Between: Kadigeethala Ravi Kumari …Petitioner AND Kadigeethala Durgabai (died) Per LRs …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3989 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order dated 15.07.2011 in E.P.No.1 of 2003 in R.C.C.No.7 of 1996 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Rajahmundry. The non-residential premises owned by one Kadigeethala Durgabai (landlady) was let out to respondents 8 and 9 herein. The landlady filed R.C.C.No.7 of 1996 for eviction. The same was ordered. The tenants’ appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed. Be it noted that during the pendency of rent control case, the landlady died and her legal representatives (LRs) as respondents 2 to 7 were brought on record. Further, the third respondent also died and his wife Ravi Kumari – the petitioner herein; got impleaded as LR of third respondent. The LRs of the landlady filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for vacant possession as per the eviction order. In the said E.P., the petitioner herein was arrayed as third respondent in addition to respondents 8 and 9 herein who were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2. Therein, the petitioner filed counter alleging that the petition schedule property was delivered to her on 12.08.2005 and that there is an inter pleader suit by respondents 1 and 2 against third respondent and therefore, decree cannot be executed. The respondents therein examined two witnesses and marked seven documents. They relied on Ex.R.4, which is allegedly delivery receipt issued by the petitioner herein addressed to the ninth respondent herein. The issue before the learned Rent Controller was whether the delivery receipt is true, valid and binding on the other co-owners. The lower Court recorded a finding that there is no valid delivery and accordingly ordered E.P., directing issue of delivery warrant. In the civil revision petition, counsel for petitioner would submit that as a co-owner petitioner has a right to initiate eviction proceedings as well as take delivery of the petition schedule property after issuing a delivery receipt. According to him, the delivery receipt issued by the petitioner herein in favour of the ninth respondent is binding on other co-owners. Per contra, the counsel for respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 would submit that the delivery receipt issued by the petitioner is not genuine and the same is not binding on other co-owners. As noticed by the Court below, in the eviction order, there was a specific direction to respondents 8 and 9 herein to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the possession to the landlady/her LRs. There was no direction to the Judgment debtors to deliver possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner herein alone. In that view of the matter, Ex.R.4 the alleged delivery receipt has no legal consequence. This is further made clear by the very reference to Rule 23(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, which is to the effect that, “an order of eviction passed under Sections 10, 12 and 13 shall be executed by evicting the persons against whom the order was passed and by delivering the vacant possession of the building in respect of which the order was passed to the person in whose favour the order was passed”. When it is admitted that respondents 2, 4 to 7 are the LRs of the deceased Durgabai, no importance can be attached to the so called delivery receipt executed by the petitioner herein addressed to the ninth respondent. Therefore, in law, there is no valid delivery of possession in respect of which eviction order was passed. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor the impugned order occasions miscarriage of justice. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.11.2011 Pln