Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kilambi Vijayalakshmi And Anr. vs M.V. Seetha Devi (Died) Per Lrs. And Ors. on 8 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT165
ORDER D.H. Nasir, J.
1. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs respectively in O.S. No. 181 of 1990 and the respondents 1 to 5 are the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners' case is that a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property was filed by the petitioners. The 1st respondent filed R.C.C.No. 33/87 against the 4th respondent. Another suit was filed for eviction from a portion of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner No. 1 filed I.A.No. 901/91 in the above suit for stay of the trial of R.C.C.No. 33/87 which was disposed of on the basis of the 4th respondent's evidence in R.C.A. No. 9/1991. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali (for short 'the trial Court') dismissed I.A.No. 901/91 on 20-12-95 on the ground that R.C.C.No. 33/87 was disposed of on a statement made by the Advocate of the 4th respondent that the High Court was seized of the matter in R.C.A. No. 9/91. Further, according to the petitioners, I.A.No. 901/91 related to the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 33/87. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the 1st petitioner was pending in the High Court and the orders passed therein were only ex parte orders and the respondents therein has not appeared in the said proceedings. The petitioners were advised to file an application in the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tenali, for staying of further proceedings in R.C.A.No. 9/91 pending disposal of the above suit as it was a comprehensive suit in which the title of the suit schedule property was to be decided. Therefore, according to the petitioners if the RCA.No. 9/91 was disposed of in favour of the 1st respondent prior to the disposal of the suit, he would withdraw the amount deposited in the Court by the 4th respondent in R.C.C.No. 33/87 and RCA. No. 9/91 and it would not be possible for the petitioners to recover the same from the 1st respondent if eventually she succeeds in the suit. On these grounds the petitioners prayed that the proceedings in R.C.A.No. 9/91 should be stayed pending disposal of the suit.
2. This Court while dealing with C.M.P.No. 13559 of 1996 in C.R.P.No. 3439 of 1996 filed by the petitioners herein praying the High Court to issue an order of staying all further proceedings in R.C. A.No. 9 of 1991 on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Tenali, passed the following orders:-
"Keeping in view the decision of this High Court in case of Podugu Jayalakshmi v. Samajadi Begum (reported in 1987 (1) Law Summary 63), in which it is observed that when the title of the respondent is under cloud and the petitioner is claiming still to be the owner of the property, then the appropriate forum to decide the dispute is the Civil Court. Considering from this perspective, the Rent Controller can, in the given circumstances, stay the proceedings till the suit is disposed of in similar circumstances. In P.V. Shetty v. Giridhar wherein an application for ejectment has been filed, the Supreme Court held that staying the proceedings till the fixation of fair rent is an appropriate order to avoid miscarriage of justice. The Court can, in a given circumstance, exercise the power Under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and stay the proceedings.
In view of what is laid down in the above decision, I am prima facie satisfied that in the interest of justice, interim stay as prayed for in the petition should be granted."
3. In view of what is observed and held by this Court in this Civil Revision at the interim stage recording prima facie satisfaction that in the interest of justice interim stay as prayed for in the petition should be granted and the interim stay was granted till final disposal of the C.R.P. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the C.R.P. itself with an order staying further proceedings in R.C.A.No. 9/91 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tenali, pending disposal of the comprehensive suit for partition in which the title of the suit schedule property would be decided. As stated earlier, R.C.C.No. 33/87 was disposed of on the basis of the evidence of the 4th respondent on the file of R.C.A. No. 9/91 which is still pending. The same deserves to be stayed as it is evident that if R.C.A.No. 9/91 filed against the orders passed in R.C.C.No. 33/87 is disposed of in favour of the 1st respondent prior to the disposal of the suit, she is likely to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court by the 4th respondent in R.C.C.No. 33 of 1987 and R.C.A.No. 9/91.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Soni v. K. Nageshwar Rao, . wherein it was held that 'Where a disputed question of title is raised or has to be decided at the instance of the third party, the scheme of the Act does not permit his impleading in Rent Control proceedings'. It is further observed that the Rent Control Act is a special Act by which a statutory protection is granted to a tenant and, at the same time, the landlord is intended to have a speedier remedy than in a regular suit. It is not the intention of the Legislature that complicated questions of title are to be adjudicated by the Rent Controller. The proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit before a civil Court for deciding the dispute as to title raised by him and obtain appropriate relief.'
5. It is further held in the aforesaid ruling that 'In the Court of the Rent Controller, where the landlord applies for eviction, the only question that the Rent Controller is competent to decide is whether the denial or claim of the landlord's title by the tenant, if any, is bona fide or not. If it is bona fide, the landlord can sue in the civil Court for eviction on one or other of the grounds mentioned in Sections 10, 12 or 13 of the Act (A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960). If it is not bona fide, the landlord can get eviction before the Rent Controller inasmuch as such a denial or claim of a tenant as regards the landlord's title, if it is not bona fide, permits eviction to be ordered by the Controller. When a tenant, who is a party to the eviction proceeding raises a dispute or claim as to the title of the landlord, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide whether the landlord has title to the property or not. The limited jurisdiction that is conferred by the Act on the Controller is to decide whether the denial or claim by the tenant is bona fide or not'. It is further emphatically ruled that "There can be no finality to any decision on title that may be given by the Rent Controller. Rent Controller can, if at all, decide only incidentally and not finally.'
6. The above ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents leave no scope for any decision other than the one which this Court is contemplating to pass that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the landlord's title has been disputed, it is just and necessary that the same should be allowed to be adjudicated by a Civil Court in the proceedings which have already been instituted. The CRP is, therefore, allowed. No costs.