HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.272 OF 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.150 of 1992 against the 2nd respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04-10-1991 in respect of a property situated at Macherla. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala and re-numbered as O.S. No.32 of 1996. The suit was decreed ex parte on 02-07-1998. The 2nd respondent filed an application under Order - IX Rule - 13 CPC with delay of 557 days. The trial Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the I.A. on 31-10-2000. 2. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed EP No.25 of 2001. Since the 2nd respondent did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the trial Court itself executed the sale deed and issued warrant of delivery of possession. At that stage, petitioner herein filed E.A. No.122 of 2003 under Order - XXXI Rules - 101 and 102 CPC with a prayer to declare that he has the right to continue as tenant on the basis of a lease agreement dated 18-06-1989. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court allowed the E.A. through its order dated 06-03-2006. 3. The 1st respondent filed CMA No.37 of 2007 in the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur. The appeal was allowed on 21-10-2008. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.V. Seshasai, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of the 1st respondent and against the 2nd respondent became final. The execution proceedings have progressed to a substantial extent. The sale deed was executed and warrant of delivery of possession was issued. At this stage, the petitioner filed the claim petition. Since the same is required to be decided as a suit, the Executing Court framed points for its consideration and recorded oral and documentary evidence. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-36 were filed. On behalf of the 1st respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were filed. The Executing Court has also taken into account, the report of the Commissioner and the Photographs as Exs.C-1 and C-2. 7. Petitioner lays his claim to the property as a tenant. The 2nd respondent is said to have given the premises on lease and executed a lease agreement dated 18-06-1989. If, in fact, the petitioner is a tenant of the 2nd respondent, mention thereof would have been made in the application filed under Order-IX Rule-13. No such mention was made. The proceedings were pending in the trial Court from the year 1992 onwards. The petitioner woke up only in the year 2003, that too, after the 2nd respondent made an attempt to get the ex parte decree set aside and failed. 8. Even according to Ex.A-1, rent agreement, the rent for the premises is Rs.1,000/- per month and it was for a period of one year. Therefore, it was required to be registered. The document was inadmissible in evidence. Though the petitioner made an effort to paint a picture that he is residing in the premises for the past several years, there is no substantial evidence for that. The lower appellate Court took into account, the fact that the petition was set up by the 2nd respondent to defeat the decree. Almost two decades have elapsed, since the 1st respondent initiated steps for enforcement of an agreement of sale. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. 9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 23, 2010. KTL