THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.2921 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent only, inasmuch as, the second respondent is not necessary party to the proceedings, as per the cause title in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order, dated 20.06.2007, passed by the Rent Controller at Vijayawada, in E.A.No.146 of 2005 in E.P.No.6 of 1988 in R.C.C.No.178 of 1984, directing issuance of delivery warrant for delivery of the petition schedule property to the petitioner (tenant) therein. 3. The said E.A., was filed by the tenant under Rule 23 of the Rent Control Act (Act XV of 1960) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for issuance of notice to the third party, who was in possession of the petition schedule property. 4. The revision petitioner is the landlord, the first respondent is the tenant and the second respondent is allegedly the subsequent occupier of the petition schedule property. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the revision petitioner and the first respondent will be referred to as “the landlord” and “the tenant”, respectively. 6. This is a peculiar case where several mistakes had taken place both from the side of the Court as well as the officers of the Court and the parties. 7. The facts of the case appear to be somewhat confounding. It appears that the matter had taken several twists and had been moving back and forth by going upto the Supreme Court also on earlier occasions. The real problem appears to be that the landlord originally leased out the petition schedule property to the tenant. Subsequently, upon an order of eviction, passed by the Rent Controller, against the tenant, the matter was carried to this Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition and some orders were passed thereon holding that the eviction is bad, against which, again, the matter had been carried to the Supreme Court, which confirmed the order passed by this Court. In the interregnum, the landlord introduced one Gowtham Publishers (the second respondent herein) as tenant of the petition schedule property. Thereupon, the tenant, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, filed an application under Rule 23 of the Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller for giving notice to the third party, who was in possession of the petition schedule property, in order to effect the delivery of possession of the same. In the said application, the Rent Controller, instead of passing appropriate orders, erroneously passed orders directing delivery of possession straightaway, without impleading the necessary party, who has actually been in possession of the petition schedule property. 8. On that ground, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord contends that the bailiff, who executed the warrant, erroneously recorded that the delivery of possession of the petition schedule property was effected in the presence of the landlord. In fact, the landlord, who is a practicing Advocate in this Court, was actually arguing a matter in this Court. Therefore, it was a factual mistake recorded by the bailiff, who recorded the delivery of possession. It is further recorded by the bailiff that the possession of the petition schedule property has been voluntarily surrendered by one T.Rama Rao, who was actually in possession. But, again, it appears that it is not one T.Rama Rao, who actually was in possession of the petition schedule property, at the time of execution of the delivery warrant, but it was one Mr.Subramanayam, representing Gowtham Publishers (the second respondent herein). Therefore, if at all, any eviction has to be effected, it is only the Gowtham Publishers, represented by Mr.Subramanyam that has to be evicted and possession is to be delivered to the tenant. 9. This Court, upon the mistakes committed by the Court below as well as the allegedly mischievous attitude played by the bailiff, called for a report from the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, which shows that the delivery was effected not in the presence of the landlord, as was recorded by the bailiff, and the delivery of possession of the petition schedule property was given voluntarily by one T.Rama Rao, who actually was not in possession of the same. So, these aspects, in my considered view, are factual mistakes, which ought not to have taken place in the Courts. 10. It is an unbecoming practice for the tenants or landlords or any persons who resort to such shortcuts or maneuvers in order to obtain unlawful advantage. The Court below shall be more careful in future, and only after thorough scrutiny of the whole issue, it shall proceed further and pass appropriate orders. 11. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid the delay of proceedings before the Court below, this Court would prefer to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition, directing the Court below to reopen the petition filed under Rule 23 of the Rent Control Act and dispose of the same afresh, after giving notice to all the persons, particularly to the persons who have been in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date or if any body else is in possession, and an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It shall also monitor, in a proper way, about the execution of such orders that may be passed. 12. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 20.06.2007, passed by the Rent Controller at Vijayawada, in E.A.No.146 of 2005 in E.P.No.6 of 1988 in R.C.C.No.178 of 1984, is set aside and the application E.A.No.146 of 2005 is restored to file. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27th October 2009 DR