| CRP 150 / 2013 | CRPSR 739 / 2013 |
|
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.
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.