APHC010027682013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3572/2013 Between: 1. REDDIPALLI SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMARAJU, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 2-11-88, BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. AYYAGARI VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/o Late Pattabhiramayya, Retired Professor of Osmania University D.No. 3-13-67, Ayyagari Vari Veedhi, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dist (Died per LRs) 2. SMT. AYYAGARI SURYA KUMARI, W/O LATE A.V. SUBBA RAO, AGED 77 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-13-67, AYYAGARIVARI VEEDHI, BHIMAVARAM-2, W.G. DISTRICT AND FOUR OTHERS. Brought on record as per orders in L.R. petition. ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toUnder Article 227 Petition against the order and decree dt. 20/6/2013 passed in EP.No. 1/2012 in IA.No. 907/2009 in RCC No. 7/2008 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge) Bhimavaram. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRPMP 4780 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the order and decree dt. 20/6/2013 passed in EP.No. 1/2012 in IA.No. 907/2009 in RCC No. 7/2008 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 Junior Civil Judge) Bhimavaram pending disposal of CRP in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRPMP 7092 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the stay orders granted by this Hon'ble court in CRP MP NO4780 of 2013 in CRP No 3572/2013 L since the time of granting stay by this Hon'ble court, the petitioner could not produce the data of rents deposited by the tenant and the same withdrawn by him from time to time and details of payments of monthly rent before the trial court in compliance with the directions of the courts, since the judicial staff in the 13 districts of costal Andhra were on strike and as such, he could not verify the rent deposit register from the trial court. Now, he has verified the deposit ro-sit.:r maintained by the trial court and submitted the facts in the data above in this counter. Hence, for the above reasons urged by the him, in this counter, the petitioner prays this Hon'ble court, to vacate the stay order passed in CRP MP No4720/2013 in CRP no 3572/2013 in the interest of justice and to grant any such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 3244 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 3245 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following order: Defendant, who is the tenant filed the above revision against the order, dated 20.06.2013 in E.P.No.1 of 2012 in I.A. No.907 of 2009 in RCC No.7 of 2008 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge) Bhimavaram. Page 3 of 8 SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 2. For the sake of brevity, this Court refers the petitioner as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the landlord filed the above RCC No.7 of 2008 under Section 10(2)(1)(2)(a) & III of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). Pending the RCC case, the tenant filed I.A.No.186 of 2009 under Section 8(5) of the Act to permit him to deposit the monthly rents from November 2008 onwards at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and landlord filed I.A.No.187 of 2009 under Section 11 of the Act, seeking a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and the present rent up to date at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. 4. By a common order, dated 30.10.2009, the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent from 01.01.2008 till 30.09.2009, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month on or before 16.11.2009 and further directed the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month, from October, 2009 onwards on or before 5th of every succeeding month till the disposal of the RCC. In default, liberty is given to the landlord to initiate proceedings under Section 11(4) of the Act. 5. Tenant filed I.A.No.875 of 2009 under Sections 18 and 151 of CPC, on 16.11.2009, seeking an extension of time by one month, enabling him to file revision or appeal and to obtain a stay order. A counter was filed by the landlord, however, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the tenant. Eventually, the said I.A. was dismissed on 24.11.2009. 6. Against the common order dated 30.10.2009 in I.A.No.186 of 2009 and 187 of 2009, the tenant filed CMA No.1 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Initially stay was granted directing the tenant to deposit the arrears. Later the said CMA was dismissed. Against the said order, the tenant filed C.R.P.No.4750 of 2011. An interim order was granted by order dated 05.11.2011, directing the tenant to deposit the entire arrears within four SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 weeks from the date of said order. Eventually the revision was dismissed on 20.04.2012. 7. In the meantime, the landlord filed I.A.No.907 of 2009 under Section 11(5) of the Act, to order the eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises and put the landlord in possession of the property. The tenant, by filing counter, opposed the application. 8. The learned Rent Controller, by order, dated 24.02.2010 allowed the application. No appeal or revision was filed against the said order and it became final. 9. Thereafter, the landlord filed E.P.No.1 of 2012 under Section 15 of the Act. Tenant by filing counter, opposed the execution petition. Learned Rent Controller, by order, dated 20.06.2013 allowed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the same the above revision is filed. 10. The above revision was admitted on 28.08.2013 and interim suspension was granted in C.R.P.M.P.No.4780 of 2013. 11. Pending the revision, the landlord died and I.A.No.1 of 2017 is filed to bring his legal representatives on record as respondents 2 to 6 and the same is ordered by separate proceeding. Sri P. Narasimha Rao appeared for respondents 2 to 6. 12. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dasari, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner (tenant) would contend that an order passed under Section 11(5) in E.P.No.1 of 2012, is not executable under Section 15 of the Act. He would also submit that the tenant paid the entire arrears and there is no default. SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 14. Learned counsel for the respondents,(landlord) on the other hand, would contend that the tenant without paying rent, has been squatting on the property. 15. The point for consideration is whether the order, dated 20.06.2013 in E.P.No.1 of 2012 in I.A. No.907 of 2009 in RCC No.7 of 2008 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge) Bhimavaram, suffers from illegality and warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 16. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 15 of the Act, an order passed under Sections 10, 12, 13 and 14 and every order passed in appeal under Section 20 or revision under Section 22 and every order as to the costs under Section 21 of the Act, are executable. Since Section 11 (4) is not included in Section 15, the order passed under Section 11(4) is not executable and hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. 17. The answer to this question is no longer res integra. In T. Venkatesam v. A. Krishnaiah1, learned Single Judge of this Court considered the said question as to whether an order passed under Section 11 is executable under Section 15 of the Act and observed as follows: “…One of the first principles of law with regard to the effect of an enabling Act is that, if the Legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time, by necessary implication, to do every thing which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the Act. In other words when the intention of an Act in conferring an express power is likely to be frustrated by not construing it as necessarily implying another incidental power of however substantial in nature, the same must be implied in order not to bring about frustration of the express intention of the Legislature. That being the principle as I comprehend it, if the power to 1 1996(2) An.W.R. 245 SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 direct eviction of the tenant is expressly given under Section 11(4) to the Rent Controller or the appellate authority and if there is no express provision to enforce that order, it must necessarily be held to imply the power to enforce such a direction. The argument that to infer such an implied power would amount to supplying an important omission and it would not be permissible as a matter of legitimate construction of a statute does not impress me. That the terms of such statute vesting certain powers and authority must have to be construed as giving by implication other necessary and incidental power to enforce it is a well-accepted rule of construction of a statute. It cannot be in doubt that if the opposite view is accepted that an order passed under Section 11(4) is incapable of being enforced under the terms of the law, it would make Section 11 itself nugatory.....” 18. In Soorampally Venkata Reddy v. New Tirumala Emporium2, another Single Judge of the composite High Court, while relying on T. Venkatesam’s case, further observed as under: “… I have taken the view that even an order passed under Section 11(4) directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession shall be deemed to be an order under Section 10(2) of the Act, falling within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act. There is yet another reason for the said view. Under Section 20 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller can prefer an appeal to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, or to the Court of Subordinate Judge elsewhere. This shows that an order of eviction is passed under Section 11(4) of the Act by the Rent Controller, is also an appealable order. As per Section 15 of the Act, any order passed under Section 20 of the Act is appealable, and therefore, any order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, as confirmed by the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Act, would also become executable.” 2 2001(4) ALT 604 SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 19. Another learned Single Judge, in Enderi Lakshmiram (Landlord) v. Shaki Ibrahim and another3, followed the ratio in T. Venkatesam’s case. 20. Thus, the precedential jurisprudence makes the thing clear that an order passed under Sec 11(4) of the Act is executable under Section 15 of the Act. Given the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect falls to the ground. 21. In the case at hand, as narrated supra, no appeal was filed against the order, dated 24.02.2010 in I.A.No.907 of 2009. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant paid the rents as per the common order dated 30.10.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.186 and 187 of 2009, however, no substantial piece of evidence is placed before this Court in support of said contention. 22. The learned Rent Controller considered all these aspects and, eventually, allowed the Execution Petition. This Court does not find any merit in the revision and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The Registry is directed to return the original bundle to the Executing Court, forthwith. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 24.01.2025 IKN 3 (2002) 1 An. WR 408 SRS,J C.R.P.No.3572 of 2013 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3572 OF 2013 Date : 24.01.2025 IKN