Mohammed Dastagir v. Mohd. Fasiuddin & Anr.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.2512, 2521, 2522 and 2524 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since common question arises between the same parties in all these Revision Petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners are the landlords who filed these Revision Petitions under Order 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the common order, dated 21-04-2008 allowing the applications in I.A.Nos.186 of 2008, 216 of 2008, 217 of 2008 and 222 of 2008 in R.A.No.314 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which were purported to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking impleadment and consequential amendments. The claim on behalf of the proposed party is to the effect that he is subsequent purchaser of the suit premises.

The appellate authority, after going into the claim and also the objections raised, allowed the said applications. Hence, the Revision Petitions. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner in all the Revision Petitions is that having regard to the principles laid down in SONI v. K. NAGESWARA RAO [1], it is not open either for the Rent Controller or the appellate authority to decide the question of title and therefore, such presence is absolutely not necessary. Hence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the applications. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen that allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. is only for the purpose of adjudicating the matter after giving opportunity to the interested persons and that itself would not in any way affect the rights of the parties. It is always open for the appellate authority to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances including the claims as set forth and pass orders on merits, in accordance with law, keeping in view the well established principles including the principles laid down in the above decision.

I do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned orders. All the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 04-03-2011 YCR [1] 1991(3) ALT 200