A third party can not be impleaded in Rent control proceedings =The specific plea of the 2nd respondent was that the 1st respondent is his tenant and that she is liable to be evicted on the ground that she committed default in payment of rents. If is for the 1st respondent to take her defence vis-a-vis the 2ndrespondent. The petitioner does not even claim that he is the tenant in respect of the premises or that he is in occupation thereof in a different capacity. In his own words, he wanted to resist the R.C.C. by taking the plea as to denial of the title of the 2ndrespondent. Not being a party to the proceedings, it is not at all open for the petitioner to raise that plea. As long as there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, he has no right to insist on being impleaded.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1017 of 2013
ORDER:
          The 2nd respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the 1st respondent herein, the mother of the petitioner herein, for eviction from the schedule premises under the provisions of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.  The petitioner, who is not a party to the proceedings, filed I.A.No.909 of 2012 under Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. with a prayer to implead him as respondent No.2 in the R.C.C.  He pleaded that the 2nd respondent purchased the schedule premises from his brother, despite the fact that the property is ancestral in nature.  In effect, he wanted to resist the R.C.C. by denying the title of the 2nd respondent.  The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application, through order, dated 29.01.2013. Hence, this revision.

          Heard Ms. N.Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

          The specific plea of the 2nd respondent was that the 1st respondent is his tenant and that she is liable to be evicted on the ground that she committed default in payment of rents.  If is for the 1st respondent to take her defence vis-a-vis the 2ndrespondent. The petitioner does not even claim that he is the tenant in respect of the premises or that he is in occupation thereof in a different capacity.  In his own words, he wanted to resist the R.C.C. by taking the plea as to denial of the title of the 2ndrespondent.  Not being a party to the proceedings, it is not at all open for the petitioner to raise that plea.  As long as there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, he has no right to insist on being impleaded.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has filed O.S.No.239 of 2011 for partition and that the premises in question was included in the schedule.  If that be so, he has to work out his remedies separately.  There was absolutely no justification for him to make an attempt to become a party to the R.C.C.  The trial Court has rejected the application by following the correct principle of law and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
          Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
          The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

Date: 14.03.2013

JSU


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Revision Petition No.1017 of 2013







Date: 14.03.2013

JSU

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515