Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1468 (AP)

M. A. Salam v. S. Siddamma

2006-11-23

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-08-2006 passed in E.A.No.30 of 2004 in E.P.No.8 of 2004 in R.C. No.78 of 2004 by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in allowing the claim petition of the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed under Rule 23(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules) read with Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in directing the petitioners herein to redeliver the petition schedule property in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein. The fourth respondent herein is the third respondent in the claim petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners herein filed R.C.No.78 of 2004 on 15-03-2004 under Sections 10 (2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) seeking eviction of the fourth respondent herein viz. Mohd. Shareef from the premises bearing No.9-4-130/131 comprising of two rooms, one mulgi and open space together admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated at Akbar Bagh, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad and the address of Mohd. Shareef was shown as H.No.8-14-1 06, Ansari Road, Miralam Tank, Hyderabad. The said eviction petition was allowed by order dated 23-04-2004 directing Mohd. Shareef to vacate the petition schedule premises within two months from the date of the said order and handover vacant possession to the petitioners. The Petitioners filed E.P.No.8 of 2004 and the learned Rent Controller by execution warrant dated 06-07-2004 directed the bailiff to evict Mohd. Shareef from the premises bearing No.9-4-130/131 and hand over the possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioners herein on or before 20-07-2004. The bailiff returned the warrant on the ground that the two rooms were locked and the petitioners herein told him orally that after getting the break open orders for the two rooms and after getting police protection the decree has to be executed. Thereafter, the petitioners herein obtained orders in E.A. Nos.25 and 26 of 2004 dated 20-07-2004 directing the bailiff to break open the lock or locks put by the judgment debtor to the suit premises and execute the warrant with the assistance of police. Pursuant to the said orders the warrant was received by the bailiff on 23-07-2004 at 2.30 p.m. and immediately the bailiff went to the said premises. Pursuant to the said orders the warrant was received by the bailiff on 23-07-2004 at 2.30 p.m. and immediately the bailiff went to the said premises. The first respondent resisted the execution and immediately approached the Court through her advocate and filed E.A.No.27 of 2004 in E.P.No.8 of 2004 representing that the bailiff is on the spot for executing the warrant and she being a third party resisted the said execution of warrant and accordingly the rent controller by order dated 23-07-2004 passed status quo order. The said order was immediately communicated to the bailiff on 23-07-2004 under EX.A-20 at 4.45 p.m. but it is stated that the bailiff refused to receive the same and under the guise of the said order dated 20-07-2004 the respondents 1 to 3 were forcibly evicted with police protection and hired goondas by illegal execution of the warrant. Having evicted the respondents 1 to 3 herein forcibly in spite of their resistance, on the other hand, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.4163 of 2004 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.822 of 2004 by order dated 29-07 -2004 which was later made absolute by order dated 06-06-2005. 3. Aggrieved by the said action the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed EANo.30 of 2004 in E.P.No.8 of 2004 stating that the first respondent is the mother of the third respondent and mother-in-law of the second respondent and that all of them were carrying on the business of selling Dairy Products and selling of Fodder for cattle, which is a joint family business being conducted under the name and style as "S.R. KUTTY SHOP AND DAIRY FARM" in premises No.9-4-130 and 9-4-131, Akbar Bagh, Toli ,Chowki, Hyderabad, which is within the municipal limits of Hyderabad. The total extent of the property in their occupation i.e. 463 sq. yards was bounded on the East by premises No.9-4-131 /5, West by House No.9-4-130/2, North by road and South by open space. The total extent of the property in their occupation i.e. 463 sq. yards was bounded on the East by premises No.9-4-131 /5, West by House No.9-4-130/2, North by road and South by open space. It is stated that they are in occupation of the said premises since 1987 and in proof of the same, property tax receipts, electricity bills, photos and negatives of 1991, Trade license standing in the name of the second respondent herein have been filed in O.S.No.5088 of 2001 pending on the file of the XIV Junior Civil Judge/II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Originally the said property belonged to K. Ganga Reddy, who sold the property to the first respondent herein in the agreement which took place on 30-08-2001 to an extent of 200 sq. yards though the respondents were in possession of entire 463 sq. yards. To prove their possession it is stated that they have filed electricity demand notices, tax receipts etc. It is stated that, in fact, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad also issued trade licence to run the business of "KUTTY SHOP AND DAIRY FARM" under the name and style as "S.R. Jutty Shop and Dairy Farm". The original property tax payment receipts for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 have been filed. (a) It is further stated that on 04-09-2001 when the said Ganga Reddy with unsocial elements attempted to dispossess them they filed a suit in O.S.No.5088 of 2001 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was subsequently transferred to the XIV Junior Civil Judge/ II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction restraining the said Ganga Reddy from interfering in any manner with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. However, the application filed by them in I.A.No.264 of 2002 for ad-interim injunction was dismissed, against which they preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who allowed the appeal by order dated 25-08-2003 granting temporary injunction and the same is subsisting till date. It is further stated that the said Ganga Reddy also admitted the possession of the respondents since 1987. It is further stated that the said Ganga Reddy also admitted the possession of the respondents since 1987. The said Ganga Reddy filed a. suit in O.S.No.7241 of 2002 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for cancellation of agreement of sale and for recovery of possession against the first respondent herein on false and fictitious grounds. In fact, in the notice issued by Ganga Reddy on 14-10-2002 he admitted that the first respondent herein is in possession of the schedule property including the property under agreement of sale dated 30-08-2001 to an extent of 200 sq. yards. (b) It is stated that the boundaries in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.7241 of 2002 and in respect of the petition schedule property in R.C.No.78 of 2004 are not tallying and in fact, the bailiff under the false panchanama evicted the respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that admittedly the petitioners herein are claiming title through Ganga Reddy and the petitioners in collusion with the Ganga Reddy filed the false eviction petition in order to defeat the right, title and interest of the respondents herein and both the suits were clubbed together and they are pending adjudication before the XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the said Ganga Reddy having agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the first respondent herein since 1987 for the entire property with a mala fide intention created a false sale deed in favour of one Abdul Aziz Khan in respect of an extent of 300 sq. yards vide Document No.2531 of 2001 on 28-08-2001 and the said Aziz in turn sold the said property on 24-12-2001 in favour of one Sadashiv Prasad, who in turn executed a registered sale deed dated 13-08-2003 in favour of the petitioners herein. It is stated that all the said sale deeds are created and in fact, the respondents 1 to 3 are in possession and by virtue of none (sic. any) of the sale deeds there was no delivery of possession. It is stated that, in fact, the fourth respondent herein, alleged tenant of the petitioners, filed O.S.No.1096 of 2004 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained status quo order in I.A.No.289 of 2004. any) of the sale deeds there was no delivery of possession. It is stated that, in fact, the fourth respondent herein, alleged tenant of the petitioners, filed O.S.No.1096 of 2004 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained status quo order in I.A.No.289 of 2004. In the suit and in the eviction petition the address of the fourth respondent herein is shown as H.No.8-14-106, Ansari Road, Miralam Tank, Hyderabad and none of the notices or correspondence in R.C.No.78 of 2004 were served at the suit schedule property and therefore, the said fact clearly establishes that the fourth respondent was never in possession of the suit schedule property and he was not at all a tenant. (c) It is further stated that the daughter of Ganga Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad against her father i.e. Ganga Reddy and Abdul Aziz Khan, Sadashiv Prasad and the petitioners herein for cancellation of sale deeds and agreement of sale dated 30-08-2001 and for recovery of possession and obtained status quo order on 22-01-2004 and the same is subsisting till today. The petitioners being party to the said suit as defendants 5 and 6, they have suppressed the pendency of the said suit in R.C.No.78 of 2004. It is stated that the respondents herein were in possession of EA schedule property out of which they have been illegally dispossessed and that the petitioners created false tenancy in favour of the fourth respondent and under the guise of evicting the fictitious tenant the respondents herein were also evicted. It is further stated that as seen from the EP schedule property the petitioners herein got warrant of execution against the fourth respondent herein on 06-07-2004 and managed the bailiff of the Court to file a false report stating that inside the two rooms doors were locked and the outside door and the mulgi door is opened, but as a matter of fact, the bailiff never visited on 15-07-2004. It is stated that the respondents running a Dairy Shop having 8 buffalos, machineries for fodder for cattle and having steel articles and cash of Rs.40,000/- were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and at no point of time the premises was kept under lock and key as alleged in the report of the bailiff dated 15-07-2004. It is stated that on 23-07 -2004 the respondents have been forcibly evicted from their residence by playing fraud on the Court by misrepresenting the facts knowing fully well and intentionally in order to gain wrongful possession by obtaining ex parte orders behind the back of the respondents. Accordingly, the claim petition has been filed on 28-07-2004 immediately within four days to redeliver the possession of the EA schedule property. 4. The petitioners herein filed a counter on 10-08-2004 stating that the claim application filed under Rule 23 (7) of the Rules, is not maintainable and the execution orders were executed after delivering the possession of the RC schedule property in favour of the petitioners herein by the bailiff on 23-07-2004 as is evident from the report of the bailiff filed in the Court in E.P. No.8 of 2004. The petitioners herein denied all the allegations of the respondents herein in the claim petition. It is further stated that the respondents 1 to 3 have not explained in what capacity they were inducted into possession and continued in possession of the schedule property and the suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of oral agreement of sale between them and the said Ganga Reddy is collusive and not binding on the petitioners. The successive sale deeds from the original owner Ganga Reddy are true and valid and the sale deed dated 13-08-2003 in favour of the petitioners executed by Sadashiv Prasad is true and valid. It is stated that, in fact, the allegation that the petitioners in collusion with Ganga Reddy filed the suits is false and fictitious. It is further stated that the alleged oral sale deed to be executed in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of 463 sq. yards does not arise as Ganga Reddy holds only 346 sq. It is stated that, in fact, the allegation that the petitioners in collusion with Ganga Reddy filed the suits is false and fictitious. It is further stated that the alleged oral sale deed to be executed in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of 463 sq. yards does not arise as Ganga Reddy holds only 346 sq. yards as the alleged property bearing No.9-4-130/131, Akbarbagh, Toli Chowki was transferred legally in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan who in turn sold the said property in favour of Sadashiv Prasad and thereafter the said Sadashiv Prasad sold the said property in favour of the petitioners herein by delivering possession. Thus, it is stated that the said registered sale deed obtained by the petitioners is not fabricated. (a) It is further stated that the sale deeds demonstrate that the petitioners herein are in possession of the schedule property and mere serving of the notice on their tenant/fourth respondent herein at his residence Ansari Road, does not falsify nor establish collusion and the same is a pigment of an imagination of the respondents and as such not tenable. It is stated that filing of the suit by the daughter of Ganga Reddy strengthens the contention of the petitioners herein that they are in possession of the said property from the date of purchase under registered sale deed dated 13-08-2003. It is stated that the petitioners have already executed the eviction order in E.P.No.8 of 2004 in R.C.No.78 of 2004 and they have taken possession of the said property and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. 5. The son of the first respondent i.e. The third respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-36, which were certified copies of the aforesaid suits, written statements, electricity bills, tax receipts, notices, interim orders of the Court etc. 5. The son of the first respondent i.e. The third respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-36, which were certified copies of the aforesaid suits, written statements, electricity bills, tax receipts, notices, interim orders of the Court etc. (a) EX.A-1 is the copy of the plaint in a.S.No.5088 of 2000, EX.A-2 is the written statement filed by K. Ganga Reddy in the said suit, EX.A-3 is the visiting card, EX.A-4 is the certified copies of seven photos, EX.A-5 is the demand notice dated 21-062001, Ex.A-6 is the receipt dated 14-08-2001 , EX.A-7 is the licence issued by MCH on 20-08-1989, EX.A-8 is the adjustment bill for electricity energy supplied dated 09-12-1982, EX.A-9 is the letter of APSEB dated 18-03-1987, Exs.A-1 0 to A-16 are receipts of the electricity charges paid from 1987 to 2001, EX.A-17 is the legal notice issued by Ganga Reddy on 14-10-2002, EX.A-18 is the copy of the plaint in a.S.No.7241 of 2002, EX.A-19 is the complaint dated 12-08-2004, EX.A-20 is the intimation letter to Bailiff dated 23-07-2004, Exs.A-21 to A-29 are the electricity bill demand notices, their payment receipts and tax receipts, EX.A-30 is the suit summons in O.S.No.22 of 2004 on the file of the III additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad taken on the first respondent in respect of her residence at H.No.9-4-130/131, Akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, which was served on the first respondent, EX.A-31 is the plaint copy of the said suit, EX.A-32 is the status quo order dated 22-01-2004 in respect of A & B schedule property i.e. 300 sq. yards and 208 sq. yards respectively in respect of premises bearing H.No.9-4-130/131 after alienating the petitioners and the respondents herein from the said property, EX.A-33 is a set of six photos, EX.A-34 is the written statement filed by the petitioners herein, EX.A-35 is the written statement of Ganga Reddy and Ex. A-36 is the injunction order dated 25-08-2003 granted by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No.5 of 2003 in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein against Ganga Reddy from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire EA schedule property admeasuring 463 sq. yards. 6. A-36 is the injunction order dated 25-08-2003 granted by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No.5 of 2003 in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein against Ganga Reddy from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire EA schedule property admeasuring 463 sq. yards. 6. It is not in dispute that all the sale deeds including the sale deed obtained by the petitioners herein and their predecessors in title in respect of the property bearing No.9-4-130/131 situated at Akbar Bagh, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad is admeasuring 300 sq. yards consisting of a room 15 x 10 and another room 8 x8 only as is evident from the sale deeds marked under Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-3. Ex. B-3 is the registered sale deed dated 13-08-2003 in favour of the petitioners herein along with the plan, EX.B-4 is the alleged letter of attornment of tenancy said to have attorned by Sadashiv Prasad informing the fourth respondent herein that the said premises has been sold to the petitioners herein and thereby informing him to pay the monthly rent of Rs.700/- to the said purchasers, EX.B-5 is the notice issued to the fourth respondent by the petitioners herein to pay the rents from December 2003, EX.B-6 is the copy of the plaint in suit O.S.No.1 096 of 2004 filed by Mohd. Shareef/fourth respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit schedule property is shown as the property purchased by the petitioners herein but the address of the tenant is shown as H.No.8-14-106, Ansari Road, Miralam Tank only. Shareef/fourth respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit schedule property is shown as the property purchased by the petitioners herein but the address of the tenant is shown as H.No.8-14-106, Ansari Road, Miralam Tank only. EX.B-7 is the order dated 20-07-2004 passed in E.A.No.25 of 2004 in E.P.No.8 of 2004 directing the concerned police to assist the bailiff at the time of execution, EX.B-8 is the warrant, EX.B-9 is the ex parte order, EX.B-10 is the decretal order, EX.B-11 is the injunction order dated 06-06-2005 obtained by the petitioners herein in I.A.No.822 of 2004 in O.S.No.4163 of 2004 until their legality or otherwise of the possession is decided by Courts of law, EX.B-12 is the memo filed by the tenant in O.S.No.1096 of 2004 stating that the petitioners herein filed R.C.No.78 of 2004 before the I Additional Rent Controller and he was evicted on 23-07-2004 through E.P.No.8 of 2004 in R.C.No.78 of 2004 and hence he may be permitted to withdraw the suit as not pressed, EX.B-13 is the judgment in O.S.No.1096 of 2004 dated 21-12-2004 wherein the suit was dismissed as not pressed by filing a memo. 7. One T. Mahender Singh, neighbour of the respondents herein for more than 20 years, examined as P.W.2, stated that he used to purchase kutty (fodder) from the respondents 1 to 3 herein as he was having buffaloes. It is stated that he is residing in H.No.9-4-131/1 and that he has seen the police and other persons when the respondents 1 to 3 were dispossessed. (a) One L. Sankar Singh, examined as P.W.3, stated that he was doing business of supplying Kadavi to the various Dairy Farms and Kutty Machine Holders including the respondents 1 to 3 herein in respect of the premises bearing No.9-4-130/131. 8. The first petitioner herein, examined as R.W.1, stated that the property bearing municipal No.9-4-130/131 admeasuring 300 sq. yards originally belonged to K. Ganga Reddy, who sold the same in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan, who in turn sold the said property to Sadashiv Prasad and the said Sadashiv Prasad sold the same in favour of the petitioners herein and addressed a letter of attornment dated 14-08-2003 to Mohd. Shareef/fourth respondent to pay monthly rents to the petitioners. yards originally belonged to K. Ganga Reddy, who sold the same in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan, who in turn sold the said property to Sadashiv Prasad and the said Sadashiv Prasad sold the same in favour of the petitioners herein and addressed a letter of attornment dated 14-08-2003 to Mohd. Shareef/fourth respondent to pay monthly rents to the petitioners. It is stated that the fourth respondent paid rents to the petitioners up to September 2003 and stopped paying rents from December 2003. It is stated that, therefore, the petitioners requested the fourth respondent to vacate and handover the schedule property but he did not vacate in spite of the legal notice dated 07-02-2004 and filed a suit in O.S.No.1096 of 2004 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained status quo order on 27-02-2004. Therefore, they have filed eviction petition in R.C.No.78 of 2004 and the same was allowed by order dated 23-04-2004. It is stated as the fourth respondent did not vacate in spite of the eviction order they filed E.P.No.8 of 2004 for delivery of possession through Court bailiff; as the bailiff returned the warrant as the room was locked, they filed an application for break opening the lock with police assistance, upon which the Court by order dated 20-07 -2004 in EANo.25 of 2005 in E.P.No.8 of· 2004 directed the concerned police to assist the bailiff at the time of execution. It is stated that under the warrant the bailiff evicted the tenant and delivered possession of the schedule property to the petitioners on 23-07 -2004. It is further stated that the respondents herein never resisted nor objected the Court orders and therefore, the bailiff executed the warrant. (a) In the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that the claim petition is in respect of 463 sq. yards pertaining to property bearing Municipal No.9-4-130/131 and it is the same property which was delivered by the bailiff in their favour, which originally was owned by Ganga Reddy. The said Ganga Reddy sold the said property as stated above and the petitioners ultimately purchased it. It is also admitted by him that in the schedule of the property under Ex. B-3 towards West it was mentioned as property bearing No.9-4-130/ 131 and it is true that whatever the boundaries mentioned in Exs.B-1 and B-2 have been shown in Ex. B-3 i.e. two rooms. It is also admitted by him that in the schedule of the property under Ex. B-3 towards West it was mentioned as property bearing No.9-4-130/ 131 and it is true that whatever the boundaries mentioned in Exs.B-1 and B-2 have been shown in Ex. B-3 i.e. two rooms. It is stated that he did not know whether the claim petitioners were in possession of the schedule property on the date of execution of Ex. B-1. It is stated that it is not true to suggest that the open place shown under Ex. B-3 towards South and Western side was included in the property shown in Ex.A-36 and the same was shown as open place towards South and West in EX.A-36. It is stated that the schedule property shown under Ex. B-3 and the property shown under EX.A-36 are different. EX.A-36 is the injunction order in CMA and Ex. B-3 is the schedule property purchased by the petitioners. It is stated that the names of C. Ramchander and Ashok were mentioned in the bailiff report but he did not know whether the bailiff report mentioned that possession was taken from C. Ramchander and Ashok. It is stated that they have not filed any electricity bills, municipal tax receipts or any other documents to show that he was in possession prior or after they purchased the said property. To a specific question, he stated that he did not know whether Mohd. Shareef is the tenant of Sadashiv Prasad, who is their vendor. It is stated that he did not file any acknowledgment and postal receipt of EX.B-5 in proof of the attornment made by his vendor in respect of his tenant. He filed EX.B-6 showing Mohd. Shareef as the plaintiff in O.S.No.1096 of 2004. The respondents herein filed injunction application in respect of EA schedule property in C.M.A.No.5 of 2003, which was allowed granting temporary injunction under EX.A-36. The eviction petition in R.C.No.l8 of 2004 filed by the petitioners and the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2004 filed by the daughter of Ganga Reddy are simultaneously pending. It is stated that the claim petitioners were not present when the panchanama was conducted. 9. The eviction petition in R.C.No.l8 of 2004 filed by the petitioners and the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2004 filed by the daughter of Ganga Reddy are simultaneously pending. It is stated that the claim petitioners were not present when the panchanama was conducted. 9. The Court bailiff, examined as C.W.1, stated that nobody informed him that he has not shown the respondents dairy farm kutti and buffaloes, which appear in his report, under EX.A-33 and the suggestion that he has not shown the particulars that appear in EX.A-33 in his report intentionally and that he executed warrant against the above persons was denied. He admitted that he has not taken the measurements of the petition schedule property and he could not say the extent of the petition schedule property. The suggestion that he has illegally taken possession in spite of the objection raised by the claim petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein was denied. He admitted that on his requisition only one S.I. and two constables accompanied him for necessary protection. It is admitted that the petitioners herein/decree holders informed that there is an apprehension of quarrel and therefore, he returned the warrant as the said premises was under lock and key. After returning the warrant the petitioners herein obtained break open orders under police protection and he has received the warrant on 23-07-2004 at 2.30 pm and immediately he went to the schedule property for execution of the warrant and at that time C. Ramchander and Ashok were present at the suit schedule property and he obtained possession from Ramchander and Ashok and handed over the same to the petitioners herein. But he stated in the report that the judgment debtor was not present and he did not verify whether the judgment debtor was present or not. He had no personal knowledge about the possession of the said Ramchander and Ashok and whether they were residents of that locality. It is admitted that the entire petition schedule property was in possession of Ramchander and Ashok and he has taken possession from them and handed over the same to the decree holder. 10. He had no personal knowledge about the possession of the said Ramchander and Ashok and whether they were residents of that locality. It is admitted that the entire petition schedule property was in possession of Ramchander and Ashok and he has taken possession from them and handed over the same to the decree holder. 10. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the respondents 1 to 3 were in possession of the EA schedule property and whether they were illegally evicted under the guise of eviction orders in R.C.No.78 of 2004 by executing E.P.No.8 of 2004. 11. Under Rule 23 (5) of the Rules an order of eviction passed under Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the Act shall be executed by evicting the person against whom the order was passed or any other person bound by the said order and by delivering the vacant possession of the building in regard to which the order was passed either to person in whose favour the order was passed or to such person, as he may appoint to take delivery on his behalf. Under Rule 23 (7) of the Rules if such execution is resisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom the 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 the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom the order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom the order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. A reading of Rule 23 (7) of the Rules goes to show that a third party to eviction proceedings can invoke Rule 23 (7) against execution of the order of eviction on the ground that the order of eviction is being executed in respect of the premises belonging to him. 12. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence goes to show that admittedly the suits are pending with regard to the declaration of title among the respective parties and others. 12. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence goes to show that admittedly the suits are pending with regard to the declaration of title among the respective parties and others. It is for the Civil Court ultimately to decide the title in favour of the persons, who are entitled to be declared as title holders and also for recovery of possession. Admittedly, the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 for specific performance of agreement of sale against their agreement holder Ganga Reddy is pending. (a) The other question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners have established the delivery of possession in their favour by their vendor and whether the possession of their tenant is established or not. 13. According to the schedule of the properties purchased by the petitioners, the schedule of the property under Ex. B-3 is shown as two rooms i.e. one room15 x 10 and other room 8 x 8 whereas in the RC the schedule property is shown as two rooms, one mulgi and open space. The petitioners as well as the respondents are claiming the same property as if the said property is in their respective possession i.e. premises bearing No.9-4-130/131. The petitioners herein have filed R.C.No.78 of 2004 subsequent to the suit O.S.No.1 096 of 2004 filed by their tenant for grant of temporary injunction, more so, after the tenant obtained temporary injunction. It is surprising to note that the said tenant having obtained injunction order remained ex parte in R.C.No.78 of 2004 and accordingly the eviction order was passed on 23-04-2004. It is also pertinent to note that the said tenant Mohd. Shareef withdrew the suit filed by him as not pressed on the ground that he was already evicted, which goes to show that the suit filed by the tenant and the eviction petition filed by the petitioners herein are collusive and not genuine one. It is also pertinent to note that the tenancy of Mohd. Shareef is also not proved. There is no single rental receipt or any evidence in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the said property either by the vendors of the petitioners or the so-called tenant. It is also pertinent to note that no suit notice and eviction notice were taken out on the tenant/Mohd. Shareef is also not proved. There is no single rental receipt or any evidence in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the said property either by the vendors of the petitioners or the so-called tenant. It is also pertinent to note that no suit notice and eviction notice were taken out on the tenant/Mohd. Shareef at the suit house H.No.9-4130/131, Akbar Bagh, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad but the notices were taken on the tenant at H.No.8-14-106, Ansari Road, Miralam Tank, Hyderabad, which is not the schedule property from which the petitioners sought eviction of the tenant. 14. As against the alleged possession of the petitioners and their tenant, it is pertinent to note that the claim petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed the municipal tax receipts and electricity receipts pertaining to the property bearing No.9-4-130/131. No doubt, the electricity receipts go to show that the premises is bearing H.No.9-4-130/1/C but the municipal tax receipts go to show that the first respondent herein has paid the taxes in respect of premises bearing No.9-4-130/ 131 only. Merely because the house number is not correctly mentioned in the electricity demand notices etc. it cannot be said that electricity bills paid by the respondents is not in respect of the claim schedule property, more so when the property tax receipts issued by the Municipal Corporation, which is an authority to receive the property tax, clearly go to show that the tax has been paid in respect of premises bearing No.9-4-130/131 only. The said Ganga Reddy has admitted the possession of the respondents herein and that the injunction order obtained by them in CMA is still subsisting. 15. The facts available on record with regard to the way in which the EP was executed pursuant to the warrant of execution dated 06-07-2004, upon which the bailiff visited the premises on 15-07-2004 and on finding that two rooms were locked returned the warrant on the advice of the petitioners, goes to show that obviously there was resistance from the respondents 1 to 3 as they were residing in the said premises with all their belongings steel articles, fodder machinery etc. Therefore, with a view to forcibly evict them, the petitioners have not only obtained orders of police protection in E.A.No.25 of 2004 but also obtained orders to break open lock or locks in E.A.No.26 of 2004 dated 20-07-2004. Therefore, with a view to forcibly evict them, the petitioners have not only obtained orders of police protection in E.A.No.25 of 2004 but also obtained orders to break open lock or locks in E.A.No.26 of 2004 dated 20-07-2004. As per the evidence of bailiff, he received the warrant on 23-07-2004 at 2.30 pm and immediately he went to the schedule premises to execute the warrant. The first respondent resisted the execution of warrant and immediately approached the Court and filed E.A.No.27 of 2004 in E.P.No.8 of 2004 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad representing that bailiff is on the spot for execution and forcibly evicting her even though she was not a party to the eviction proceedings and the rent controller ordered status quo by order dated 23-07-2004, which goes to show that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are in possession of the schedule property. In view of the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in C.M.A.No.5 of 2003 by II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in view of the admission by Ganga Reddy original owner that the respondents are in possession and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the possession of either the petitioners herein or their vendors or their tenant and in view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence by the respondents 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that the respondents 1 to 3 established their claim of possession over the schedule prer1!ises and that they were forcibly evicted. 16. As admitted by the bailiff that the possession was obtained from Ramchander, who is no other than the third respondent herein, therefore, I am of the opinion that in spite of the objection and the resistance by the third parties to the eviction order for executing the warrant, at the instance of the petitioners herein the Court bailiff forcibly evicted the respondents 1 to 3 herein and handed over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioners. In that view of the matter the Rent Controller having rightly considered the entire oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. In that view of the matter the Rent Controller having rightly considered the entire oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. I am also of the opinion that the petitioners herein played fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact about the possession of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in respect of the said premises by claiming false tenancy in favour of the fourth respondent herein, which fact vitiates the proceeding obtained by the petitioners herein. However, the facts also go to show that fraud has been played on the Court as well as on the claim petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity or impropriety to interfere with the order under revision. 17. As per the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller the petitioners herein cannot continue in possession of the said property and the possession of the respondents 1 to 3 herein shall be restored forthwith without any reference to the injunction order obtained by the petitioners in I.A.No.822 of 2004 in O.S.No.4163 of 2004, which is only subject to legality or otherwise of the legal possession to be decided by Courts of law. The possession of the claim schedule property was taken over and delivered by the bailiff to the petitioners illegally and by dispossessing the respondent 1 to 3 herein; the respondents are entitled for restoration of possession. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.