1999 Supreme(AP) 951

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.N.SASTRY
GOLLU BHAVANI SANKAR - Appellant
Versus
BHOGAVALLI RAJESWARA RAO - Respondent
Decided On : 10-29-99

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code ,1908 - Section 10 - Section 151 - Rent Control Act or rules - Rule 22 - Seeking stay of R - C - C - Facts leading to this revision petition may be stated briefly petitioner herein is 2nd plaintiff in O - S - which is filed by petitioner along with his mother for specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by one, who figures as first defendant in said suit, in their favour agreeing to sell plaint schedule property to them for a total sale consideration of three lakhs fifteen thousand - said suit was filed on allegations that on date of agreement, a sum of Rs - 65,000/- was paid by plaintiffs by way of advance to vendor and that it was agreed that sale transaction should be completed - Even though plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of agreement, vendor colluded with respondents 1 and 2 herein who figure as defendants in said suit, and executed a registered sale deed in their favour - It is also stated that respondents are not bona fide purchasers for value and they had notice of prior agreement in favour of plaintiffs and hence they are bound by same and are bound to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs along with defendant - suit was accordingly filed claiming reliefs of specific performance of agreement of sale and for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property or in alternative for refund of advance amount of Rs - 65,000/- besides a sum of Rs - 75,000/- by way of damages - Respondents herein are contesting said suit inter alia on grounds that alleged agreement of sale is a rank forgery and that same was fraudulently brought into existence with an ante-date so as to defeat rights of respondents who are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration – Held , Learned Counsel for petitioner, however, sought to rely on thedecision of Supreme Court reported in for proposition that even if default in payment of rent, and whether suit premises is bona fidely required by landlord for personal occupation - It is well settled that enquiry in a Rent Control proceedings is summary in nature and Rent controller has no jurisdiction to go into questions of title - It is true that petitioner herein and other respondents in RCC are denying title of respondents for schedule premises by setting-up prior agreement of sale Under provisions of Rent Control Act, Rent Controller can only decide whether denial of title of landlord by tenants is bonafide or not - If he comes to conclusion that such denial is bonafide, Rent Controller has to dismiss Eviction Petition directing landlord to establish his title in a competent Court of law - On other hand, if Rent Controller comes to conclusion that denial of title is not bonafide, on that ground itself, he can order eviction of tenants without going into other questions - So scope of enquiry in two proceedings is altogether different - In fact in decision reported in Menta Subbaramayya and another vs - Batchu Narasimha Swamy and another it is held: "when a particular procedure is laid down in Rent Control Act itself, in case of denial of title provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable - provisions of Rent Control Act are mandatory - Rent Controller has no option to proceed in any other manner stated in in case of denial of landlord s title by tenants - If Rent Controller is of opinion that denial of landlord s title is bonafide, then he shall dismiss eviction petition filed by landlord - If on other hand he is not satisfied about bona fides of denial of title raised by tenants, then he shall order tenants to put landlord in possession of building does not in terms apply there is no legal impediment for invoking underlying principle where questions substantially in issue in both proceedings are one and same by invoking inherent powers - Division Bench Judgment reported in Amrutlal vs - Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and another which is directly in point dealing with power of Rent Controller to stay proceedings before him is binding on me - Even assuming that power can be invoked, Court of view that on facts of present case, there as no valid grounds to stay Rent Control proceedings till disposal of civil suit as sought for by petitioner - In first place, scope of enquiry and questions for determination in both proceedings are substantially different - Main questions to be decided in civil suit are whether agreement of sale is true and valid and whether respondents herein are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of said agreement - In Rent Control proceedings, main questions to be decided are whether respondents have committed willful – Appeal is Dismissed