A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AN application (C. M. P. No. 8977/87) has been filed by the tenantin this revision petition to raise an additional ground. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, eviction petition was filed on three counts- (l) wilful default in payment of rent ; 2. Sub-letting and (3) bonafide requirement for personal occupation. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition giving a finding on all the three counts in favour of the respondents landlords. On appeal, though disagreed with the later two counts, the appellate Court, dismissed the same upholding the wilful default in payment of rent and, therefore, confirmed the finding of the first Court. Hence this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) IN this revision petition, C. M. P. No. 8977 of 1987 is filed seekingpermission to raise an additional ground. In short the ground which is sought to be raised is whether it was competent even for the Rent Control court as also the appellate Court as well as this Court to adjudicate upon the merits of this petition filed for eviction in the light of the G. O. M. No. 636, General Administration Department, dt. 29th December, 1983, as the buildings in respect of which the rent is more than Rs. 1,000/ are exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Though the petition was instituted in the Rent Control Court in the year 1980, by the time the Rent control Court decided the matter in 1984, the G. O. came into force on 29-12-1983 which barred the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court from deciding this case where in admittedly the rent is more than Rs. 1,000/ in respect of the premises in question. Hence this revision petition will have to be allowed on that count itself and cannot be adjudicated on merits as this court cannot entertain this revision.

( 3 ) THE counter-contentions on behalf of the landlords is that thismiscellaneous petition (C. M. P. 8977/87) for raising the additional ground is filed at the time when this revision petition itself has come up for final hearing, that the ground has not been mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of revision, that it was never raised either before the Rent Control court or in the lower appellate Court and that now after a delay of seven years this should not be allowed to be urged as the petitioner s conduct contributed towards the protraction of the case having suffered the decree in both the Courts below, and therefore it must be held that the tenant is intending to raise this additional ground with unclean hands and, so such plea should not be encouraged. It is also contended that if this ground is allowed to be raised, is will cause grant hardship to the landlord-respondents as they have to once again start the entire litigation.

( 4 ) THE resistence in the main to this counter contention on behalf ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the jurisdictional point can be raised and allowed to be raised at any point of time, as the Court would have no juisdiction whatsoever in this case and therefore the plea of delay should not weigh with the Court.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Mula vs. Babu Ram where the facts are analogous to the case on hand, held :"it is perfectly true that jurisdiction is conferred on a court by statute and acquiescence on the part of parties will not confer jurisdiction where none exists, but where the defendant does not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, either in the trial court or in the first appellate court or in the grounds of the appeal but takes part in the proceedings without objection, the High Court will not, in second appeal, allow him to raise the question for the first time nearly seven years after the original decision. In proceedings under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court can in its discretion refuse relief to a party who, by his conduct has disentitled himself to it. The inherent power of the Court t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document