THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3896 OF 2007 DT.17.06.2010 Between: M.Anjaiah ……Petitioner Vs. 1)P.Varalaxmi (died) 2) Parsi Sivaiah (died) through his son and L.R. Parsi Rajasekhar, Nizamabad. ….Respondent. O R D E R: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor under Section 115 C.P.C., seeking to assail the order passed in E.P.No.160 of 2005 in O.S.No.386 of 1997, dated 17.08.2007 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the application filed by the respondent/decree holder for eviction of the judgment debtor was allowed. Admittedly, the execution which has been laid down by the respondent has been opposed by the petitioner. It is seen from the record that in pursuance of a decree obtained in the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.386 of 1997, dated 4.7.1999, it was mutually agreed to between the petitioner and the respondent that the respondent has to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per month with effect from 4.9.1999 and that the lease deed was executed on the same day for a period of three years. However, there is nothing in the award passed by the Lok Adalat to show that the parties intended to extend the lease beyond three years from 1.9.2002 or that the decree holder should be delivered possession of the suit mulgi after that date. Further, the judgment debtor also failed to mention in his counter that after 31.08.2005 lease of mulgi was extended. Since the lease deed executed by both the parties or the award passed by the Lok Ddalat did not contemplate any eviction and even as per the agreement, no contemplation as to any action in regard to the payment of the agreed amounts has been mentioned and as long as there is no such decree of eviction, it is not open for the decree holder to lay any execution against the judgment debtor. Necesssarily, the respondent has to go for fresh proceedings. Hence, the order of execution as laid down in E.P.No.160 of 2005 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.17.06.2010 tjs