ARREARS OF RENTS SHOULD BE DEPOSITED FOR ASKING TO SET ASIDE EXPARTE ORDERS IN RENT CONTROL CASE = In spite of the eviction petition being filed on the ground of wilful default, the tenant has not deposited the rents before the Rent Controller after filing of the eviction petition in the year 2009 until today. If there is any dispute with regard to quantum of rent or liability to pay rent, the tenant could have deposited the rents without prejudice to her rights and contentions. He did not do so. There are absolutely no grounds to set aside the eviction order, even if it is taken as ex parte eviction order. The Courts below rightly exercised their discretion in favour of the landlord and rightly dismissed the petition as well as the appeal filed by the tenant.

CRP 150 / 2013

CRPSR 739 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
NIDUBOLU MAHALAXMI  VSNANDA VIJAYA PRABHAKAR
PET.ADV. : RAJESH BABURESP.ADV. : SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
SUBJECT: RENT CONTROLDISTRICT:  EAST GODAVARI

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.150 of 2013
ORDER:

This revision petition filed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by which the appellate authority dismissed the rent control appeal confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by which the Controller refused to set aside the alleged ex parte order of eviction passed by him.  
The rent control case before the Rent Controller was filed by the landlord against the revision petitioner/tenant for her eviction from the rented premisis on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and on other grounds. 
 The tenant, after receiving notice in the eviction petition, filed counter opposing the same.  Prior to reaching the stage of enquiry, there were several somersaults.   At the time of enquiry before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked his documents.  The tenant’s advocate did not cross-examine P.W.1.  After closure of the landlord’s evidence, the eviction petition was posted by the Rent Controller for evidence on the part of the tenant.  The tenant did not lead her evidence in spite of granting sufficient adjournments.  Therefore, after closing the tenant’s evidence, the Rent Controller posted the matter for arguments.  The petitioner’s advocate filed written arguments.  After the above exercise, the Rent Controller passed eviction order against the tenant.

          To set aside the said eviction order, the revision petitioner filed petition before the Rent Controller under Order IX, Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. through another advocate with no objection endorsement of the previous advocate.

          It is contention of the revision petitioner that the previous advocate made no objection endorsement on 21.09.2011 and that in spite of it he did not report no instructions in Court for the tenant.  Placing reliance on B.JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTY v. A.K. PARTHASARTHI[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the revision petitioner’s counsel that disposal given by the Rent Controller is one under Order XVII, Rule 2 CPC and not under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC and that therefore the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is one in the nature of ex parte order.  Irrespective of the above controversy under Order XVII C.P.C., even assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that the order passed by the Rent Controller is an ex parte order, then it is to be seen whether there are sufficient grounds for the tenant which prevented him from attending the Court.  If really the previous advocate of the tenant gave no objection on 21.09.2011, immediately some other advocate should have filed vakalath on behalf of the tenant with the said no objection endorsement of the previous advocate.  Instead, the tenant had left the case to winds.  It is only on 04.04.2012, the tenant came up with the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, which was filed by a new advocate with no objection endorsement of the old advocate.  There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the tenant/petitioner for the period from 21.09.2011 to 04.04.2012.  In these circumstances, this Court has every reason to suspect the tenant colluding with the previous advocate by accommodating with antedated no-objection endorsement.  This Court is of the opinion that the tenant is playing all dilatory tactics before the Rent Controller with an intention to drag on the eviction proceedings in order to squat on the tenanted premisis.  In spite of the eviction petition being filed on the ground of wilful default, the tenant has not deposited the rents before the Rent Controller after filing of the eviction petition in the year 2009 until today.  If there is any dispute with regard to quantum of rent or liability to pay rent, the tenant could have deposited the rents without prejudice to her rights and contentions.  He did not do so.  There are absolutely no grounds to set aside the eviction order, even if it is taken as
ex parte eviction order.  The Courts below rightly exercised their discretion in favour of the landlord and rightly dismissed the petition as well as the appeal filed by the tenant.

          In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.


__________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Date: 14.02.2013
Ssv/Rns


 




HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

                                                           












CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.150 of 2013









                                       Date: 14.02.2013


Ssv/Rns


[1] (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 641

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.

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

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.