THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 5632 of 2007 Dated: 21-06-2011 Between: Saleemunnissa and others .. Petitioner And Smt.Rubeena Asra and others .. Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 5632 of 2007 ORDER: The revision petition is filed against the order dated 12.11.2007 in E.A.No.133 of 2006 in E.P.No.24 of 2006 in R.C.No.101 of 1997, which is an application filed under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) read with Rule 23(7) of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 to declare the order of eviction dated 01.12.1999 made in R.C.No.101 of 1997, as null and void and not binding on the petitioners therein. The claim of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners was the tenant and after him they have been residing in the schedule of property but without adding the petitioners as parties the decree of eviction was obtained. The respondents 2 to 5 are also the children of Taher Hussain. The 1st respondent-decree holder, contended that the eviction orders were passed on 01.12.1999 against the respondents 2 to 5 and thereafter they have preferred an appeal, which was dismissed and subsequently the matter was carried in revision in C.R.P.No.5433 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed. It was also further pleaded that the original tenant Taher Hussain died on 04.07.1997 and the respondents 2 to 5 were added as his legal representatives. The respondents 2 to 5 were also depositing the rents. Evidently, the petitioners herein are only the legal representatives of the original tenant. Some of the legal representatives are already on record in the earlier proceedings and they also defended their cause. Therefore, even if the claim of the petitioners that they are not properly added as parties to the eviction proceedings is true, still when some of the legal representatives representing the estate and the tenancy of late Taher Hussain, were added as parties and have contested in the Rent Control petition and also carried the matter upto the High Court and lost the same. The petitioners herein, who are said to be some other legal representatives, cannot re-agitate the issues, which were already decided. The legal representatives only represent the estate of the tenant and all of them are bound by the order passed against them. Therefore, the claim of the present petitioners that the decree has become a nullity and not enforceable, cannot be considered. Furthermore, when a lawful decree has been obtained and has become final the persons claiming through the original tenant, cannot ask the Court to re-open it and declare as nullity. If such an opportunity is to be given, then no decree will become final. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners does not appear to be true. But, however, if the petitioners claim that they have been unlawfully evicted or any damage has been caused while evicting, they are at liberty to pursue their remedies open under law for damages. I do not find any merits in the revision. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 5632 of 2007 21-06-2011 MR