THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013
03-11-2017
Yerra Seshagiri Rao Petitioner
Dunna Renukadevi Respondent
Counsel for Petitioner :Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar
Counsel for Respondent:Sri M.Rammohan Reddy
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?Cases referred :1)AIR 1972 AP 186 (V.59 C 42)
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 09.11.2012
passed in I.A.No.2108 of 2011 in R.C.C.No.16 of 2010 by the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, (for short Rent
Controller).
2) The facts leading to filing of the present revision are as
follows:
The respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.16 of 2010
before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2) (I and IV) of Andhra
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short
the Act), seeking eviction of the petitioner from the schedule
premises. In said case, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.2108 of 2011
under Section 10 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC)
seeking stay of further proceedings in R.C.C.No.16 of 2010 till
disposal of O.S.No.128 of 2010 pending on the file of the III
Additional District Judges Court, Kakinada, stating that the
respondent is not the owner of the property; petitioner and her
brother filed O.S.No.128 of 2010 for partition; there is a dispute
regarding the title over the property; unless the title is decided, the
Rent Controller cannot decide the question of title and cannot
proceed with the Rent Control Case.
3) A counter affidavit came to be filed in the said I.A. stating
that the petition is not maintainable under law; the respondent
and her brother filed O.S.No.128/2010 for partition; the Rent
Control Case is filed basing on the gift deed dated 06.08.2008
executed by the mother of the respondent; the question of title
dispute relating to the petition schedule property as averred by the
petitioner is not true and correct; the petition is filed only to drag
on the matter and to avoid payment of rent to the respondent.
4) The Rent Controller, after considering the rival
contentions, dismissed the petition holding that the impugned
application is not maintainable; the question of title will be
considered only to the limited extent to ascertain whether there
exist a landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent
and the petitioner; if any finding is given in R.C.C. with regard to
title, the same is not conclusive in nature; and only for the reason
that O.S.No.128 of 2010 is pending, there is no necessity to stall
the proceedings in R.C.C. till disposal of O.S.No.128 of 2010.
Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
5) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
6) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. without considering
the fact that gift deed dated 06.08.2008 is under challenge in the
partition suit. For adjudicating landlord and tenant relationship
by the Rent Controller, title over the schedule premises is very
much essential, which can be decided only in O.S.No.128 of 2010.
7) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that I.A.No.2108 of 2011, which is filed under Section 10
CPC seeking to stay the proceedings in R.C.C., is not maintainable
on the ground that the petition is filed after P.W-1s evidence and
when the RCC was coming up for cross-examination. The issues
for adjudication in R.C.C are not directly and substantially in issue
in the suit filed by the respondent. The provision under Section 10
CPC has no application to the rent control proceedings since the
Rent Control Court and Civil Court are not Courts of concurrent
jurisdiction and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the
relief claimed in the Rent Control Court. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court in Manta Subbaramayya and others v. Batchu
Narasimha Swamy and another .
8) The Rent Control Act is a special enactment, which
regulates disputes of tenancy and inter se rights and obligations of
landlord and tenant. The District Munisiff will be appointed as a
Rent Controller under the Act and conducts to perform the
functions of a Rent Controller under the Act. The Act is intended
for speedy trial and disposal of the cases relating to tenant and
landlord. The Rent Controller cannot grant the relief of declaration
of occupancy rights. The object underlying Section 10 CPC is to
avoid recording of conflicting findings of issue which are directly
and substantially in issue in previously instituted suits. In all,
Section 10 CPC suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in
the Civil Court and it cannot be applied to the proceedings in other
cases instituted under any other Statutes. Thus, it is crystal clear
that Section 10 CPC is referable to a suit instituted in a Civil Court
only. The proceedings before the Rent Controller cannot be
equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. It is not the
Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Hence, the provision of Section
10 CPC has no application to the facts of the present case.
9) Coming to the decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent in Manta Subbaramayya (1 supra),
paras 10, 12, 14 and 15 are relevant for adjudication of the present
revision, which read as under:
10. On a plain reading of the section, it is
manifest that Section 10 is attracted only when the previously
instituted proceedings and the subsequently instituted
proceedings are suits. If one is suit and the other not Section 10
Civil P.C. is not attracted.
12. Moreover for the application of Section 10 Civil
P.C. both the courts in which the suits are pending, must be of
concurrent jurisdiction. That is to say, the court in which the
previously instituted suit is pending must have jurisdiction to
grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The Rent
Controller in this case does not possess the jurisdiction to pass a
partition decree or to order separate possession in the original
suit. Unless the suits are pending in courts of concurrent
jurisdiction Section 10 Civil P.C. is not attracted.
14. No doubt, apart from Sec.10 stay of suit can
be granted under inherent powers exercisable by a court under
Section 151 Civil P.C. As already stated above, the Rent Controller
is not a Court. He can exercise inherent powers only, which are
necessary for ordering eviction of the tenants, or for
determination of those issues, which are necessary for ordering
eviction of tenants.
15. Inherent powers cannot be invoked in a case
where a particular procedure has been laid down to meet a
particular contingency. Under S.10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, if the tenants
deny the title of the landlord or claim permanent tenancy, then
the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea
raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of
landlords title by the tenants is bona fide, then he shall dismiss
the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he
is not satisfied about the bona fides of the denial of title raised by
the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in
possession of the building. When a particular procedure is laid
down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title
provisions of Civil P.C. i.e., Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not
applicable. The provisions of Section 10 (6) of the Rent Control
Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to
proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in
Section 10 (6) in case of denial of landlords title by the tenants.
10) In the said case, the petitioner sought eviction of
tenant under the provisions of the Act and a petition under Section
10 r/w. Section 151 CPC was filed to stay the proceedings on the
ground that partition suit is pending against the landlord and
thereby the tenant denied the title of the landlord. In such a
situation, it was held that the rent control proceedings are
summary proceedings, which are intended to be disposed of
expeditiously. The proceedings in the suit may take long time for
disposal and it would be unjust to stay the rent control
proceedings till disposal of the partition suit. The ratio referred to
above is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
11) For the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs
and in view of the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in
Manta Subbaramayya (1 supra), I find no illegality or irregularity
in Rent Controller dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner under
Section 10 CPC seeking stay of the proceedings. Hence, the Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed.
12) Miscellaneous petitions pending in this revision, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
(M.GANGA RAO, J)
3rd November, 2017
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013
03-11-2017
Yerra Seshagiri Rao Petitioner
Dunna Renukadevi Respondent
Counsel for Petitioner :Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar
Counsel for Respondent:Sri M.Rammohan Reddy
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?Cases referred :1)AIR 1972 AP 186 (V.59 C 42)
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 09.11.2012
passed in I.A.No.2108 of 2011 in R.C.C.No.16 of 2010 by the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, (for short Rent
Controller).
2) The facts leading to filing of the present revision are as
follows:
The respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.16 of 2010
before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2) (I and IV) of Andhra
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short
the Act), seeking eviction of the petitioner from the schedule
premises. In said case, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.2108 of 2011
under Section 10 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC)
seeking stay of further proceedings in R.C.C.No.16 of 2010 till
disposal of O.S.No.128 of 2010 pending on the file of the III
Additional District Judges Court, Kakinada, stating that the
respondent is not the owner of the property; petitioner and her
brother filed O.S.No.128 of 2010 for partition; there is a dispute
regarding the title over the property; unless the title is decided, the
Rent Controller cannot decide the question of title and cannot
proceed with the Rent Control Case.
3) A counter affidavit came to be filed in the said I.A. stating
that the petition is not maintainable under law; the respondent
and her brother filed O.S.No.128/2010 for partition; the Rent
Control Case is filed basing on the gift deed dated 06.08.2008
executed by the mother of the respondent; the question of title
dispute relating to the petition schedule property as averred by the
petitioner is not true and correct; the petition is filed only to drag
on the matter and to avoid payment of rent to the respondent.
4) The Rent Controller, after considering the rival
contentions, dismissed the petition holding that the impugned
application is not maintainable; the question of title will be
considered only to the limited extent to ascertain whether there
exist a landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent
and the petitioner; if any finding is given in R.C.C. with regard to
title, the same is not conclusive in nature; and only for the reason
that O.S.No.128 of 2010 is pending, there is no necessity to stall
the proceedings in R.C.C. till disposal of O.S.No.128 of 2010.
Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
5) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
6) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. without considering
the fact that gift deed dated 06.08.2008 is under challenge in the
partition suit. For adjudicating landlord and tenant relationship
by the Rent Controller, title over the schedule premises is very
much essential, which can be decided only in O.S.No.128 of 2010.
7) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that I.A.No.2108 of 2011, which is filed under Section 10
CPC seeking to stay the proceedings in R.C.C., is not maintainable
on the ground that the petition is filed after P.W-1s evidence and
when the RCC was coming up for cross-examination. The issues
for adjudication in R.C.C are not directly and substantially in issue
in the suit filed by the respondent. The provision under Section 10
CPC has no application to the rent control proceedings since the
Rent Control Court and Civil Court are not Courts of concurrent
jurisdiction and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the
relief claimed in the Rent Control Court. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court in Manta Subbaramayya and others v. Batchu
Narasimha Swamy and another .
8) The Rent Control Act is a special enactment, which
regulates disputes of tenancy and inter se rights and obligations of
landlord and tenant. The District Munisiff will be appointed as a
Rent Controller under the Act and conducts to perform the
functions of a Rent Controller under the Act. The Act is intended
for speedy trial and disposal of the cases relating to tenant and
landlord. The Rent Controller cannot grant the relief of declaration
of occupancy rights. The object underlying Section 10 CPC is to
avoid recording of conflicting findings of issue which are directly
and substantially in issue in previously instituted suits. In all,
Section 10 CPC suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in
the Civil Court and it cannot be applied to the proceedings in other
cases instituted under any other Statutes. Thus, it is crystal clear
that Section 10 CPC is referable to a suit instituted in a Civil Court
only. The proceedings before the Rent Controller cannot be
equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. It is not the
Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Hence, the provision of Section
10 CPC has no application to the facts of the present case.
9) Coming to the decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent in Manta Subbaramayya (1 supra),
paras 10, 12, 14 and 15 are relevant for adjudication of the present
revision, which read as under:
10. On a plain reading of the section, it is
manifest that Section 10 is attracted only when the previously
instituted proceedings and the subsequently instituted
proceedings are suits. If one is suit and the other not Section 10
Civil P.C. is not attracted.
12. Moreover for the application of Section 10 Civil
P.C. both the courts in which the suits are pending, must be of
concurrent jurisdiction. That is to say, the court in which the
previously instituted suit is pending must have jurisdiction to
grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The Rent
Controller in this case does not possess the jurisdiction to pass a
partition decree or to order separate possession in the original
suit. Unless the suits are pending in courts of concurrent
jurisdiction Section 10 Civil P.C. is not attracted.
14. No doubt, apart from Sec.10 stay of suit can
be granted under inherent powers exercisable by a court under
Section 151 Civil P.C. As already stated above, the Rent Controller
is not a Court. He can exercise inherent powers only, which are
necessary for ordering eviction of the tenants, or for
determination of those issues, which are necessary for ordering
eviction of tenants.
15. Inherent powers cannot be invoked in a case
where a particular procedure has been laid down to meet a
particular contingency. Under S.10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, if the tenants
deny the title of the landlord or claim permanent tenancy, then
the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea
raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of
landlords title by the tenants is bona fide, then he shall dismiss
the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he
is not satisfied about the bona fides of the denial of title raised by
the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in
possession of the building. When a particular procedure is laid
down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title
provisions of Civil P.C. i.e., Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not
applicable. The provisions of Section 10 (6) of the Rent Control
Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to
proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in
Section 10 (6) in case of denial of landlords title by the tenants.
10) In the said case, the petitioner sought eviction of
tenant under the provisions of the Act and a petition under Section
10 r/w. Section 151 CPC was filed to stay the proceedings on the
ground that partition suit is pending against the landlord and
thereby the tenant denied the title of the landlord. In such a
situation, it was held that the rent control proceedings are
summary proceedings, which are intended to be disposed of
expeditiously. The proceedings in the suit may take long time for
disposal and it would be unjust to stay the rent control
proceedings till disposal of the partition suit. The ratio referred to
above is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
11) For the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs
and in view of the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in
Manta Subbaramayya (1 supra), I find no illegality or irregularity
in Rent Controller dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner under
Section 10 CPC seeking stay of the proceedings. Hence, the Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed.
12) Miscellaneous petitions pending in this revision, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
(M.GANGA RAO, J)
3rd November, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.