AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE tenants are the revision petitioners in both the C. R. Ps. C. R. P. No. 1294 of 2000 was filed as against the order in R. C. A. No. 43 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior civil Judge, Vishakapatnam whereas c. R. P. NO. 4072 of 2000 was filed against the order made in I. A. No. 54 of 2000 in R. C. No. 84 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, vishakapatnam. The said I. A. was filed by the petitioners under Section 15 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure code seeking relief of partition of the petition schedule property into four equal shares and to deliver possession of respective 1/4th and 3/4th shares by appointing a Commissioner to divide petition schedule property. The Court below appointed a Commissioner to divide the said property by an order dated 29-8-2000 and aggrieved by the same, CR. P. No. 4072 of 2000 was filed. C. R. P. No. 1294 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the appellate authqrity in R. C. A. No. 43 of 1995 dated 18-11-1999 in which the appeal was dismissed to the extent of order of eviction, but it was modified ordering eviction of tenants from 3/4ths undivided share of the tenants (sic. landlords) therein as they are entitled to retain 1/4th undivided portion of the property and the parties were directed to approach the learned Rent Controller with a petition under Section 15 of the Act seeking a final decree for appointment of an Advocate- commissioner for partition of property by metes and bounds and thereafter the learned rent Controller shall pass final decree accordingly with regard to 3 /4th share of the landlords and in case the tenants succeed in obtaining any further share in the property, the learned Rent Controller is at liberty to pass appropriate orders depending upon the circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners in C. R. P. NO. 1294 of 2000 had submitted that in view of the purchase of 1/4th share by registered sale deed dated 16-4-1993 by the 2nd revision petitioner viz. , the third respondent in the eviction petition, the possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed except by invoking the remedy in a competent civil Court. The learned counsel had also drawn our attention relating to agreement of sale dated 27-5-1992 for the other 1/4th share and had submitted that a suit for specific performance is pending in this regard. The learned Counsel also had submitted that except relating to the 1/4th share purchased during the pendency of the litigation, in all other respects the findings of both the Courts are against him.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the landlords had vehemently contended that even if the registered sale deed is taken into consideration the other landlords are entitled to get possession of 3/4th share subject to the result of the suit for specific performance and in the event of success, the said 1/4th share also may go to the tenants. At this stage, at the best, the tenants can contend that they are entitled to 1/4th share by virtue of a registered sale deed. However, it is pertinent to note that even the vendor under the said sale deed was not examined. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on the decisions in Bibijan v. Chintakridi narasimham, Lingaiaht Kistaiah, Chennaiah v. CH. Venkatesham, Pokuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Vinnakota Peda Nageswam Rao.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel in C. R. P. No. 4072 of 2000 had contended that the impugned order directing the appointment of commissioner to divide the properties is totally unsustainable since the remedy under the Act is only a summary remedy and the relief of partition or division of property by metes and bounds by appointment of a Commissioner and the passing of the final decree can be done only by a competent Civil Court and not by the rent Controller. Even otherwise, und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document