HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2526 OF 2002 Date:18-11-2011 Between: V. Motilal. - - - Petitioner. And Smt. Krishnaveni Kapoor and nine others. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2526 of 2002 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-02-2002, passed in E.A. No.73 of 2001 in E.P. No.13 of 2001 in R.C.C. No.420 of 1985 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The Petitioner-Judgement Debtor filed E.A. No.73 of 2001 seeking to dismiss the E.P. No.13 of 2001 and restore the possession of the petition premises bearing No.4-2-239, First and Second Floor situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 3. The trial Court, after due enquiry dismissed the E.A. No.73 of 2001. Being aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner mainly urged that the Judgment Debtor was not given notice before eviction, which is mandatory under Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. In the absence of such notice, the eviction of the Judgement Debtor is contrary to the mandatory provisions and placed reliance in the decision reported in Arvapalli Ramarao Vs. Kanumarlapudi Ranganayakulu and others[1], wherein it was held as follows : “As per Order 21, Rule 16 Assignment of decree itself does not give assignee right to take part in execution proceedings. He has to first obtain recognition of assignment by Court”. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents while supporting the judgement of the trial Court urged that the Revision against the order of restoration of the possession of the property is not maintainable and drawn the attention of this Court to the decision reported in K. Yousuf Ali Vs. Narsing Raj and another[2] wherein it was held as follows : “Held, the purchaser is entitled to the benefits of the decree of eviction which his vendor had and the tenant cannot resist the execution of the decree. The plea of attornment is not available to the tenant. Unless there was a fresh tenancy agreement entered into between the purchaser and the tenant, it is lnot possible to spell out any relationship of landlord and tenant between the purchaser and the tenant.” 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial Court dated 28-02-2001, passed in E.A. No.73 of 2001 in E.P. No.13 of 2001 is sustainable? 7. The Petitioner herein is the unsuccessful tenant in the suit schedule property. Originally the Decree holder No.1 filed R.C. No.420 of 1985 for eviction of the Judgement Debtor i.e. the Petitioner herein. Originally, the rent control proceedings were filed for eviction of the Petitioner and the learned Additional Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the Eviction Petition on 31-10-1992, against the dismissal order, the Decree Holder No.2 preferred R.A. No.5 of 1993 and the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was pleased allow the Appeal as per order dated 24-01- 1997 and directed the Petitioner-Judgement Debtor to vacate the E.P. Schedule property within one month. Against the said order, the Judgement Debtor herein preferred Civil Revision Petition No.374 of 1997. That, the decree holder No.2 sold the entire building bearing No.4-2-239 including the E.P. Schedule property to the decree holders Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 by way of registered sale deed dated 27-03-1997. 8. A perusal of the averments in the Execution Petition No.13 of 2001, the Petitioner-tenant was directed to vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition on 21-12-2000, but the tenant has not preferred any Appeal against that Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition No.374 of 1997, dated 21-12- 2000 has become final. Accordingly, as per the said decree, the Judgement Debtor-Petitioner has to vacate the premises within three months thereafter i.e. on or before 22-03-2001. But in spite of the time granted by this Court, he has not vacated the premises thereafter. Even according to the facts, the Judgement Debtor-tenant has no right to stay in the property after 22-03-2001. 9. It is an admitted fact that the Judgment Debtor was evicted under due process of law by way of eviction orders in E.P. No.13 of 2001. There is no evidence that the Judgement Debtor made any objection at the time of eviction. Further, As per the orders of this Court made in C.R.P. No.374 of 1997, dated 21-12-2000 the Petitioner has to vacate the premises on the stipulated due date as directed therein and that he has no right to squat on the property. Therefore, in that background, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that no notice under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. is mandatory cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination, even otherwise, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as per the decision cited 2nd supra. Moreover, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the Revision is not maintainable in the present case as the order of execution is clear and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition is demerited one and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 18-11-2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 183 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2526 OF 2002 November, 18, 2011 DSH. [1] AIR 1964 A.P. (F.B.) 1 [2] 1974 (2) APLJ 364