Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.RAMULU
Manta Subbaramayya - Appellant
Versus
Batchu Narasimha Swamy - Respondent
Decided On : 07-16-71
RENT CONTROL - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - RENT CONTROLLER NOT A COURT - SECTION 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE NOT APPLICABLE - INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - NOT INVOKABLE WHEN SPECIFIC PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 10 (6) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT - MANDATORY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE AGAINST TENANTS - STAY OF RENT CONTROL PROCEEDINGS NOT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Tenants filed petitions under Sections 10 and 151, Civil Procedure Code (CPC) before the Rent Controller to stay rent control petitions filed against them by the landlords on the ground that the landlords' title to the suit property was in dispute in a partition suit filed by one of the joint owners. The Rent Controller granted the stay, but the Subordinate Judge set aside the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 10, CPC was not applicable to the rent control proceedings because the Rent Controller was not a court. It also held that the inherent powers under Section 151, CPC could not be invoked because a specific procedure was laid down in Section 10(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for dealing with cases where tenants denied the landlord's title. The court further held that the balance of convenience was against the tenants and in favor of the landlords, as rent control proceedings were summary proceedings intended to be disposed of expeditiously, while partition suits took a long time for their disposal.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 10, CPC was applicable to rent control proceedings. 2. Whether the inherent powers under Section 151, CPC could be invoked to stay rent control proceedings. 3. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of staying the rent control proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 10, CPC applies only to suits, and not to proceedings before the Rent Controller, who is not a court. 2. The inherent powers under Section 151, CPC cannot be invoked when a specific procedure is laid down in a statute, such as Section 10(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, for dealing with cases where tenants deny the landlord's title. 3. The balance of convenience was against the tenants and in favor of the landlords, as rent control proceedings were summary proceedings intended to be disposed of expeditiously, while partition suits took a long time for their disposal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenants' revision petitions and upheld the Subordinate Judge's order setting aside the stay of the rent control proceedings.
( 1 ) THESE three Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge. Nellore in C. M. A. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1970, setting aside the common order passed by the Rent Controller staying the Rent Control Petitions, till the disposal of O. S. No. 99 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court. Nellore.
( 2 ) THE material facts, giving rise to these petitions, are as follows: The petitioners in all these C. R. Ps. are tenants and the respondents, who are common to all there C. R. Ps. are the landlords, Respondents purchased the suit building by means of a registered sale deed dated 6-9-1968 for Rs. 47,500. 00 from Pateti Radhayya and Paritala Kanakamma. Petitioners are in occupation of three different portions of the said building as tenants. petitioners were informed of the sale in favour of the respondents and the petitioners continued to pay the rents to the respondents. after execution of the sale deed in their favour in respect of the said building.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS filed rent control petitions against the petitioners for their eviction on the ground that the respondents bona fide required the building for carrying on their existing and expanding business.
( 4 ) PETITIONERS filed counters admitting that they were tenants. They further stated that they were paying rents without prejudice to their contentions and that the respondents had no title to the suit property as their vendors Pateti Radhayya and Paritala Kanakamma had no title to convey. The sale deed dated 6-9-1968 in favour of the respondents was only a sham, nominal and collusive deed, devoid of consideration and got up with the oblique purpose of evicting the tenant (. . . . .)
( 5 ) WHEN the Rent Control Petitions came up for inquiry the petitioners filed 1. A. Nos. 982 and 986 of 1969. Under Sections 10 and 151. civil P. C. requesting the Rent Controller to stay the inquiry in all those Rent Control petitions. ; The averments in those petitions were: that the vendors. who sold the building to the respondents, had no title to convey the same in favour of the respondents, that the suit building was one of joint family properties belonging to Pateti Radhaya, one of the vendors, and his brother Pateti Subbarao, a and that Pateti Subbarao filed O. s. 99 of 1967 in Nellore for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in all the joint family properties, including the suit building. In the said suit Pateti Subbarao sought to implead the petitioners as parties and also sought and injunction restraining the petitioners from paying rents to the respondents. Since the respondents title to the suit building was in dispute in the Rent Control petitions as well as in the partition suit before the Subordinate Judge it was proper to stay the Rent Control proceedings.
( 6 ) TO those petitions the respondents filed a counter. They denied that the properties mentioned in O. S. 99/67 or the building from which the petitioners are sought to be evicted, were the joint family properties of Pateti Radhavya and his brother. The properties were purchased by Pateti Radhayya and Paritala Kanakamma from their vendors by means of a registered sale deed dated 12-12-1947 and from Pateti Radhdyya and Paritala Kanakamma the respondents purchased the said building by a registered sale-deed after paying consideration of Rs. 47,500. 00. The joint family of Pateti Subbarao was already divided in 1944. The suit building was the self acquired property of Pateti Radhayya and Paritala Kanakamma. Paritala Kanakamma, who had a half share in the suit building was not made a party to the suit O. S. 99 of 1967. Even assuming that Pateti Subbarao succeeded in the partition suit, which he had filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Nellore, he would be entitled to 1/10th and not 1/5th in the suit building. It is neither just nor fit to grant stay of rent control proceedings.
( 7 ) NO evidence was led by the petitioners in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
