SEC.47 PETITION BEFORE RENT CONTROL COURT = an application under Section 47 C.P.C would not lie before the Court of Rent Controller under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in as much as it is not a civil court, for which it has no application under Section 47 C.P.C.


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2189 OF 2012

Dt:- 20.09.2012

Between:-

Praveena Kumari.
… Petitioner
and

Smt.Dr.R.Seethamma.                                                   … Respondent




















This Court made the following:-

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2189 OF 2012

ORDER: -

          This Revision is preferred against dismissal of petitioner’s application under Section 47 CPC moved before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, who is also the Rent Controller under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.  It is not in dispute that the petitioner who is a tenant suffered in decree for eviction and when the said decree was put in Execution by the respondent-landlord in E.P.No.190 of 2011, the petitioner preferred E.A.No.316 of 2011 under Section 47 C.P.C, raising various grounds with regard to error in the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller.  The Court below has recorded evidence oral and documentary and rejected the said E.A.  Hence, this revision.
          After hearing both the learned counsels, I am unable to appreciate as to how an application under Section 47 C.P.C would lie before the Court of Rent Controller under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in as much as it is not a civil court, for which it has no application under Section 47 C.P.C.  Even assuming that the said application was maintainable, it is settled law that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree and cannot adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of decree on any of the grounds on which the said decree is passed. Since that is the purpose what the petitioner seeks to achieve, the same is impermissible under law.  Remedy of the petitioner is therefore elsewhere and E.A.No.316 of 2011 was therefore rightly dismissed on the reasons aforesaid without necessity of going into any of the controversies. 
          The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if is permissible as per law.


_____________________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

20.09.2012
kvs


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR




























CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2189 OF 2012





















20.09.2012
KVS


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