1 APHC010590502023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3023/2023 Between: 1. YATHAM LAKSHMI PRASAD, S/O. VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, MALE, HINDU, OCC SHAMIYANA BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.34-21, BANGARUVARI THOTA VEEDHI, 13TH WARD, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PULAPARTHI SATYA SURYA PRAKASHA RAO, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged about 62 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D. No.5-91/1, Kontheru Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toPetitioner begs to presents this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Decree and Order dt. 10-02-2023 passed in R.C.A. No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Narsapur confirming the Decree and Order dt.03-08-2018 passed in R.C.C. No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Rent Controller- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Palakol IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Decree 2 and Order dt. 10-02-2023 passed in R.C.A. No.l of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge :: at Narsapur confirming the Decree and Order dt.03-08-2018 passed in R.C.C. No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge :: at Palakol and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P L NARASIMHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3022/2023 Between: 1. YATHAM LAKSHMI PRASAD, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, OCC SHAMIYANA BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.34-21, BANGARUVARI THOTA VEEDHI, 13 TH WARD, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PULAPARTHI SATYA SURYA PRAKASHA RAO, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, Male, Age 67 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D. No.5-91/1, Kontheru Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT 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 tobegs to presents this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Docket Order dt. 16-11-2023 passed in E.P. No.27 of 2023 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Honble Rent Controller- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Palak IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Docket Order dt.l6- 11-2023 passed in E.P. No.27 of 2023 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 2016 3 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate :: at Palakol and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 Pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 24-11-2023 in CRP No. 3022 of 2023 and dismiss the CRP no. 3022 of 2023 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: 4 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner herein is the respondent in R.C.C.No.05 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol which was filed by the respondent herein, wherein, the trial Court has directed the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises vide order dated 03.08.2016. 2. C.R.P.No.3022 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the docket order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol in E.P.No.27 of 2023 (filed by the respondent herein) in R.C.C.No.05 of 2016. C.R.P.No.3023 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 (filed by the petitioner) confirming the order dated 03.08.2016 passed in R.C.C.No.05 of 2016. As both civil revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner challenging the orders arising out of R.C.C.No.05 of 2016, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the same by way of this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is the owner of a land to an extent of 238 square yards situated in R.S.No.150/5 of Palakol municipal area, which was leased out to the petitioner herein for the purpose of storing/placing their material (shamiana) for a period of three years with a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. The lease period commenced from November, 2010 and subsists until October, 2013. The petitioner herein is said to have 5 paid monthly rent regularly till August, 2013 and committed default of the same since September, 2013. As the lease period of three years expired by October, 2013, the respondent herein demanded the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule property, but of no avail. As such, the respondent has filed R.C.C.No.05 of 2016 against the petitioner herein for his eviction from the petition schedule property and to deliver the same to the respondent, wherein, the Court below vide order dated 03.08.2018, has directed the petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule property and to handover the same to the respondent within three months from the date of the order. The said order was also confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur on 10.02.2023 in an appeal filed by the petitioner herein in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018. Challenging the said order dated 10.02.2023, the petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.3023 of 2023. Subsequently, the respondent herein has filed an execution petition before the Court below (E.P.No.27 of 2023 in R.C.C.No.5 of 2016) and an order was passed in favour of the respondent herein on 16.11.2023, challenging which, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3022 of 2023 before this Court. 4. When C.R.P.No.3022 of 2023 came up for hearing on 24.11.2023, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order: “There shall be an order of status quo with respect to the petition scheduled premises covered under RCC.No.5 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol dated 03.08.2018 and the R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur dated 10.02.2023, pending further orders.” 6 5. The respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit duly reiterating all the facts of these civil revision petitions and further contended that these revision petitions were filed by the petitioner by misrepresenting the real facts. It is further stated that the petition schedule property is required for the bona fide requirement of the respondent and that the respondent is suffering irreparable loss for the past ten (10) years by virtue of the acts of the petitioner. The order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur confirming the order dated 03.08.2018 in R.C.C.No.5 of 2016 and the order passed by the trial Court in E.P.No.27 of 2023 in R.C.C.No.5 of 2016 dated 16.11.2023 need not be interfered by this Court and that the same are in accordance with law. It is further stated that the respondent has filed a suit (O.S.No.34 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol) against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.62,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of realization, wherein a decree was passed on 25.02.2020 in favour of the respondent. Hence, requested to vacate the interim order dated 24.11.2023 and to dismiss these revision petitions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Admittedly, the respondent herein is the absolute owner of the schedule property admeasuring 238 square yards in R.S.No.150/5 of Middivari street, Palakol and the same was leased out to the petitioner in the year 2010 herein 7 for a period of three years which subsists until October, 2013. As the petitioner herein was neither paying the rent nor vacating the premises even after expiry of the lease period, the respondent filed R.C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petitioner schedule property wherein, an order was passed in favour of the respondent herein on 03.08.2018. Against the said order, the petitioner herein has filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, which was dismissed on 10.02.2023 by confirming the order dated 03.08.2018 in R.C.C.No.5 of 2016. In spite of the same, as the petitioner herein did not vacate the petition schedule property, the respondent has filed an execution petition i.e. E.P.No.27 of 2023 in R.C.C.No.5 of 2016 for execution of the order dated 03.08.2018 and an order was passed on 16.11.2023 in favour of the respondent herein. While all these petitions were pending, the respondent has filed a suit (O.S.No.34 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol) against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.62,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of realization, wherein a decree was passed on 25.02.2020 in favour of the respondent. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is intending to vacate the petition schedule property pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018, dated 10.02.2023 but, however 8 requested to grant him sometime. He further submitted that the petitioner has paid the amount payable to the respondent and that nothing is left to pay to the respondent as on today, which submission was seriously objected by learned counsel for the respondent by stating that not even a single rupee was paid pursuant to the order passed by the trial Court on 25.02.2020 in O.S.No.34 of 2019. 9. In view of the above submissions, instead of going into the merits of the case, these civil revision petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule property within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall pay rent to the respondent till he vacates the petition schedule property. 10. In view of the above, these civil revision petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:09.10.2025 Gss