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