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 2^nd respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the 1^st 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent was that the 1^st 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 1^st respondent to take her defence vis-a-vis the 2^ndrespondent. 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 2^ndrespondent.  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 2^nd 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