( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. Basith AH yavar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri T. V. Rajivan, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner, Jai Singh, brother of 2nd respondent herein/judgment- debtor who is shown to be not a necessary party both before the learned III Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad and also before this Court filed the present Civil Revision petition under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, being aggrieved of the dismissal of E. A. No. 15/2004 in E. P. No. 9/2004 in r. C. No. 5 86/97 moved by him before the in Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Rule 23 (7) of A. P. . Rent Control rules, 1961, hereinafter in short referred to as "rules" wherein the adjudication of the claim of the petitioner was prayed for with a further prayer to dismiss the E. P. filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder. Before the learned III Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad, the Revision petitioner had examined himself as PW-1 and Exs. P-1 to P-8 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent/landlady/decree-holder none had been examined but Exs. R-1 to R-3 were marked. ( 3 ) THE learned Rent Controller framed the following Points for consideration : 1. Whether the petitioner can resist or obstruct execution with just and sufficient cause and if so? 2. Whether an order of execution can be disallowed ? and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, ultimately dismissed the E. A. filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Act. ( 4 ) SRI Basith Ali Yavar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that it is not as though the 1st respondent landlady has no knowledge that the petitioner alone is the tenant and despite the same fought the prior proceedings as against the brother of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/judgment-debtor. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of Exs. P-1 and P-2 and would maintain that in the light of ex. P-1 it cannot lie in the mouth of the landlady now to contend otherwise taking a stand that the brother of the petitioner is the tenant and not the petitioner. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of Exs. P-1 and P-2 and would maintain that in the light of ex. P-1 it cannot lie in the mouth of the landlady now to contend otherwise taking a stand that the brother of the petitioner is the tenant and not the petitioner. The learned counsel while elaborating his submissions also had pointed out the powers which can be exercised by the executing Court and the limitations thereof and also placed reliance on certain decisions. ( 5 ) PER contra Sri T. V. Rajivan, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/decree holder had pointed out exs. R-1, R-2 and R-3 and the findings which had been recorded by the learned rent Controller and would contend that the order in CRP No. 79/2004 had attained finality and being unsuccessful, the Judgment- debtor, the brother of the petitioner, had set up the present petitioner which is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the alleged claim under rule 23 (7) of the Rules cannot be maintained. The Counsel also explained the stand taken in Ex. P-2 and would contend that on verification the landlady having found the real tenant had initiated eviction proceedings as against the Judgment-debtor and the counsel also would contend that it is not as though it is an ex parte order of eviction but an order on contest and hence the stand that it may be a collusive game also cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad in E. A. No. 15/2004 in E. P. No. 9/ 2004 in R. C. No. 586/97. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad in E. A. No. 15/2004 in E. P. No. 9/ 2004 in R. C. No. 586/97. ( 7 ) RULE 23 (7) of the Rules reads as hereunder :"if such execution is resisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, the controller may hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance and obstruction still continues shall issue a warrant to evict the said person by force and deliver the possession of the building to the person entitled for possession in pursuance of the order of eviction, if he is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in the possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. " ( 8 ) THE 1st respondent herein, Krishna bai Jaiswal, the petitioner in R. C. No. 586/ 97 is the owner of premises bearing no. 14-9-941, Chowrah Jinsi, Hyderabad having purchased the same from one smt. Shanta Devi under a registered sale deed and it is stated that the 1st respondent/ landlady issued quit notice on 9-8-1989, the original of Ex. B-1, to the effect that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and hence he is liable to vacate the premises and the petitioner issued a reply on 5-9-1989, copy of the same is marked as Ex. P-2, wherein allegations were denied and specific stand was taken that there was no attornment of tenancy and the petitioner has been paying rents regularly to the erstwhile owner Smt. Shanta Devi and it was also stated that the petitioner has been continued on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and there was no practice of issuing rent receipts and there are no arrears of rent at all and the 1st respondent/landlady demanded enhancement of rent to Rs. 200/- and there was no practice of issuing rent receipts and there are no arrears of rent at all and the 1st respondent/landlady demanded enhancement of rent to Rs. 500/- and the petitioner refused such a demand and hence the landlady filed R. C. No. 586/ 97 as against the 2nd respondent/ramesh collusively and obtained an order of eviction and the E. P. is filed with a mala fide intention to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule premises and hence his claim to be Adjudicated in accordance with law. The attornment of tenancy also no doubt was admitted by the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE landlady had taken specific stand that the petitioner who moved the claim under Rule 23 (7) of the Rules is the younger brother of the 2nd respondent/ ramesh who was unsuccessful in CRP no. 79/2004 and at his instance the petitioner filed the present application and the other allegations also had been denied. Further stand was taken that the said ramesh contested the eviction case taking a stand that his father and one Puram singh had purchased the petition schedule premises and resided therein as owners and after the death of Puram Singh and prakash their legal heirs succeeded to the property and thus denied the tenancy. But however the said stand taken by the Judgment-debtor had been negatived by the appellate Court which had been confirmed in C. R. P. No. 79/2004. In the light of the findings recorded it was further pleaded that the petitioner is not a tenant at all of the premises in question and all other allegations also had been denied. ( 10 ) AS already referred to supra, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and Exs. P-1 to P-8 were marked. The landlady had not examined herself and none were examined but Ex. R-1, the certified copy of the order in R. C. No. 586/ 97, Ex. R-2 certified copy of the order in r. A. No. 86/99 and Ex. R-3 certified copy of the order in CRP No. 79/2004 were marked. P-1 to P-8 were marked. The landlady had not examined herself and none were examined but Ex. R-1, the certified copy of the order in R. C. No. 586/ 97, Ex. R-2 certified copy of the order in r. A. No. 86/99 and Ex. R-3 certified copy of the order in CRP No. 79/2004 were marked. In the light of the lengthy submissions made by both the Counsel and the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, the question to be decided in the present Civil Revision petition is as hereunder : whether the stand taken by the Revision petitioner that he is the tenant and not his brother, the Judgment-debtor, can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case 7 ( 11 ) THE fact that the property in question originally belonged to Smt. Shanta devi is not in serious controversy. The further fact that the landlady purchased the property under a registered sale deed also is not in serious controversy. The case of the petitioner is that originally his grand father Chowhanlal had taken the petition schedule premises on lease from one Shamlal and after his death his wife shanta -Bai succeeded to the property and after the death of his grand father his father became the tenant and on his death his mother became the tenant of the said premises. Hence even as per the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that the judgment-debtor and the present revision petitioner are blood brothers. In the light of the stand taken it is clear that the landlady initiated eviction proceedings in the light of the reply Ex. P-2 and the stand taken by the petitioner therein and had ascertained that the judgment-debtor is the real tenant and hence R. C. No. 586/97 was filed as against the real tenant, the brother of the petitioner. In the light of the stand taken in Ex. P-2, again the Revision petitioner cannot take advantage of Ex. P- 1. At any rate, it is pertinent to note that the brother of the revision petitioner, the tenant, had contested the matter and ultimately the landlady was successful in R. A. No. 86/99 which was confirmed in CRP No. 79/2004. In the light of the stand taken in Ex. P-2, again the Revision petitioner cannot take advantage of Ex. P- 1. At any rate, it is pertinent to note that the brother of the revision petitioner, the tenant, had contested the matter and ultimately the landlady was successful in R. A. No. 86/99 which was confirmed in CRP No. 79/2004. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the further stand taken by the petitioner is that though initially the jural relationship was denied, subsequent thereto there was attornment of tenancy. The pleading and the evidence when compared with the findings recorded by the appellate Court and the Revisional Court in R. A. No. 86/99 and crp No. 79/2004 appear to be inconsistent and in a way contradictory. Apart from this aspect of the matter, when there was no practice of issuance of rent receipts when it is the case of the petitioner that his mother has been paying rent and she has been living with him, the non-examination of the mother also would assume some importance. Apart from Exs. P-1 and P-2, the petitioner placed reliance on Ex. P-3 electoral roll, Ex. P-4 Employment card, ex. P-5 Certificate of registration with reference to motor cycle, Ration card and electoral rolls of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. It is also in the evidence of the petitioner that he has been residing along with other members of the family in the petition schedule premises. No doubt the learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out placing reliance on Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and another, 1999 (3) ALT 1 (SC) = 1999 (2) ALD (SCSN) 17, in support of his contention that in the light of the fact that the landlady had not entered into witness box, adverse inference may have to be drawn. It is pertinent to note that all the prior judicial proceedings before the Rent Controller, Appellate authority and the Revisional Court, Exs. R-1, r-2 and R-3, were marked, which are self-explanatory and the petitioner is obstructing the execution evidently at the instance of his brother who had lost the eviction battle as against the landlady. Hence, in the light of Exs. R-2 and R-3, non- examination of landlady would not assume much importance. R-1, r-2 and R-3, were marked, which are self-explanatory and the petitioner is obstructing the execution evidently at the instance of his brother who had lost the eviction battle as against the landlady. Hence, in the light of Exs. R-2 and R-3, non- examination of landlady would not assume much importance. ( 12 ) YET another contention was advanced that even otherwise though the brother was party to the eviction proceeding, the petitioner being a non-party, such decree cannot be put into execution as against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Textile Association (India) Bombay unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another, AIR 1990 SC 2053 . In the said decision, the Apex Court while dealing with the death of tenant and leaving behind the widow and two sons in the context of section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 where ex parte decree had been obtained by the landlord as against mother and brother held that it is not binding on the respondent, a non-party and the decree cannot be kept alive against two other tenants and possession cannot be given to the respondent alone exclusively and ex parte decree was set aside with a direction to implead the respondent also as a party to the suit. This decision is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the landlady is claiming the property by virtue of a registered sale deed and initially under Ex. P-1 when notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner had denied the very relationship itself in Ex. P-2. But however, as PW-1, he had deposed that subsequent thereto there was attornment and hence he is the real tenant and not his brother. The specific stand taken by the landlady is that on ascertainment of the real tenant she had initiated the eviction proceedings. As can be seen from Exs. R-1 to R-3, the Judgment- debtor, brother of the petitioner, 2nd respondent, who is shown to be not a necessary party had fought the litigation and who no doubt had been successful before the original authority but became unsuccessful before the Appellate authority and Revisional authority, now intends to escape from the rigour of execution of the order of eviction by setting up his younger brother. This is quite clear from the evidence available on record and hence the decision of the Apex Court referred textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another (supra) is definitely distinguishable on facts. The learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner also placed strong reliance on yet another decision in Gongunta Krishna murthy v. Bommisetti Narasimha Rao and others, 1987 (2) ALT 198 = 1987 (2) APLJ 162 , where the learned Judge while explaining Sections 10 and 11 of the Act and Rule 23 (6) and (7) and the scope of the Rule held that where an ex parte order against tenant in eviction petition had been obtained by landlord by playing fraud and filed Execution Petition for delivery of possession and where the warrant was not executed due to third parties being in possession of the property the dismissal of Execution Petition by the Rent Controller on the basis of commissioner s report was held to be sustainable since the executing Court has power to go behind the decree and deny relief in execution. On a careful reading of the factual matrix in the said decision, the same also is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, except stating that there is some collusion, there is no acceptable material placed before the learned Rent controller to arrive at a conclusion that either the ground of collusion or ground of fraud at least prima facie had been made out. It is a case of an unsuccessful tenant, the real elder brother of the revision petitioner, setting up the revision petitioner for the purpose of postponing the execution of the order of eviction lawfully obtained by fighting the legal battle for sufficiently a long time. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the present objection application moved by the revision petitioner is only moved to postpone the execution of the eviction order already obtained by the landlady and this is the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case since no other inference is possible and hence the findings recorded by the learned rent Controller in this regard cannot be found fault in any way and the said findings are hereby confirmed. Consequently, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed being devoid of any merit whatsoever, with costs.