AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Hon''ble Mr. Justice Raghuvir
The three revision petitions arise in like circumstances under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act XV of 1960 (the Act). The learned counsel for the parties have argued the cases with reference to the relevant proceedings in CRP. No. 35/79. On July 21, 1977 in RC No. 4 of 1976 the Rent Controller at Warangal directed the tenant to vacate the premises. The landlord submitted E.P. No. 93 of 1978 on May 27, 1978. This application, as it appears from the dates, was lodged beyond six months of the order on July 21, 1977. However in the impugned order the tenant was directed to deliver the possession of the premises to the landlord.
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the rules framed of the Act provide that if an order of eviction is not executed within six (sic) the date of the passing of the order, the order cannot in law be executed and relied on a decision of this court in Polisetty Ramaiah Setty vs. S. Narasimha Charyulu 1977 (2) APLJ 321 in that case the proviso to rule 23 of the rules does not appear to have been noticed.
The rules promulgated on May 18, 1961 in G.O.Ms. No. 547 were amended to add the following proviso to rule 23:
Provided that an application may be admitted after the specified period, if the applicant satisfies the controller that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within such period.
The effect of this proviso is:--If execution application filed beyond six months, the Rent Controller is vested with power, if satisfied, to condone the delay in making the application. The record in the instant case is not very clear on this aspect. The learned counsel for the landlord respondent submits that an application numbered as E.A. No. 300 of 1978 was filed to condone the delay and in that it does not appear the tenant was beard before condonation was ordered. The question at issue is; Whether the Rent Controller was "satisfied" within the meaning of the proviso having heard the tenant in the E.A. 300 of 78. Since the record does not show that the tenant was heard, the impugned order is set aside. The Rent Controller at Warangal is directed to hear the parties and may it be added that a speaking order be passed to indicate that the Rent Controller is satisfied or otherwise within the meaning of proviso to rule 23.
There shall be a similar order in GR.Ps. 86 and 87 of 1979. No order as to costs in the revision petitions. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the matter within two months after the receipt of the records.