Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
G.SHYAM PRASAD, J.
Kothuruthi Naga Ratnam and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Maddipati Satya Veera Venkata Rama Devi and ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3698 & 3699 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2020
Rent Control Rules, 1961 - Rule-23(7) - Eviction - Revision petitioners are the claim petitioners, who are the wife and children of the J.Dr. - EA filed for the eviction of the J.Dr. who was a tenant of the schedule premises - Held, Petitioners are none other than the family members of the 1st respondent - They are residing in the demised premises of 1st respondent along with him. Now they come out with a version that they have filed a suit for partition, and the suit schedule property belongs to them, and they have a share in the property - Proceedings in the partition suit are entirely different, and unless they prove the same with some evidence that they have a share in the schedule property, they are not entitled to claim rights over that property - RCC has already passed a decree directing eviction of the 1st respondent form the schedule premises and therefore, the petitioners being the family members cannot turn around and say that they have a share in the said property and therefore, RCC Court cannot pass orders against them for eviction - The question with regard to jurisdiction to entertain the rent control case can be raised only by the 1st respondent - But the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the orders passed by the rent controller - Therefore, the order of the rent controller has become final - Civil revision petitions are dismissed.
Facts of the Case:
case of the revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent has filed RCC No.4 of 2011 against the 2nd respondent that he committed default in payment of the rent of Rs.2,800/- and obtained eviction orders in RCC against the 2nd respondent, and it was a collusive suit to defeat their rights. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition in OS No.63 of 2011 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, against the respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte in the said suit.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners are none other than the family members of the 1st respondent - They are residing in the demised premises of 1st respondent along with him. Now they come out with a version that they have filed a suit for partition, and the suit schedule property belongs to them, and they have a share in the property - Proceedings in the partition suit are entirely different, and unless they prove the same with some evidence that they have a share in the schedule property, they are not entitled to claim rights over that property - RCC has already passed a decree directing eviction of the 1st respondent form the schedule premises and therefore, the petitioners being the family members cannot turn around and say that they have a share in the said property and therefore, RCC Court cannot pass orders against them for eviction - The question with regard to jurisdiction to entertain the rent control case can be raised only by the 1st respondent - But the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the orders passed by the rent controller - Therefore, the order of the rent controller has become final
Result: Civil revision petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
CRP No.3698 of 2019:
This revision petition arises out of the order and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in EA No.180 of 2017 in EP No.1 of 2012 in RCC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.
CRP No.3699 of 2019:
2. This revision petition arises out of the order and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in EA No.1 of 2012 in EP No.1 of 2012 in RCC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for revision petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.
4. The revision petitioners are the claim petitioners, who are the wife and children of the J.Dr. The EA No.1 of 2012 was filed under Rule-23(7) of Rent Control Rules, 1961, for the eviction of the J.Dr. who was a tenant of the schedule premises.
5. The case of the revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent has filed RCC No.4 of 2011 against the 2nd respondent that he committed default in payment of the rent of Rs.2,800/- and obtained eviction orders in RCC against the 2nd respondent, and it was a collusive suit to defeat their rights. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition in OS No.63 of 2011 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, against the respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte in the said suit.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the J.Dr. has purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed. The petitioners being the wife and children, have 1/4th share in the schedule property. There is no jural relationship between respondents 1 and 2.
7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter contending that the eviction orders passed against the 2nd respondent behind his back is false. It is denied that the 2nd respondent agreed to pay Rs.1500/- and Rs.1300/- to the ground floor, total Rs.2,800/- for a period of three months and that the 1st respondent put the 2nd respondent as tenant in the schedule house property with the knowledge of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent and the petitioners have a collusive suit to have a wrongful gain. The 1st respondent got issued a legal notice for eviction through their advocate and after receipt of the eviction notice, the present petition is filed. It is the case of the respondents that the 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent had cleared the debts to the bank; there is no cause of action in this petition as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners submit that the allegation that the 1st respondent obtained eviction orders against the 2nd respondent is false and incorrect.
8. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent and the petitioners have collusively filed the petition to have a wrongful gain and got issued a legal notice for eviction through their Advocate. After receiving the eviction notice, the present petition is filed.
9. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he has purchased the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and he cleared all the debts to the bank and there is no cause of action in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present application.
10. The executing court on consideration of the issues, has dismissed the application holding that the claim petitioners failed to establish their joint right in the schedule mentioned property and mere pendency of a partition suit does not confer any right or title of the claim petitioners. The claim petitioners are bound to obey the decree. It is further held that the claim petitioners are not entitled to any relief and they have no right to continue in the schedule mentioned property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
11. The Execution Application E.A.No.1 of 2012 was filed under Rule 23(7) of Rent Control Rules 1961. The jurisdiction of the executing Court has been challenged in this execution application.
The finding
SupremeToday
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
