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, AIR 1972 AP 186 (V.59 C 42).

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 tr