High Court · 2009

Order

These revision petitions are filed under provisions of Section 22 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the orders passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad in the appeals filed by the respondent herein challenging the orders passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking to implead the parties by name:

1. Indira Seva Sadan (registered Trust) represented by its Managing Trustee, in the premises No.17-1- ISS Complex, Santoshnagar X 209, Madannapet, Hyderabad. roads,

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad Twin Cities District, at Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. in the eviction cases filed by the respondent against the petitioners.

2. As the facts are similar in all these revisions, the facts in C.R.P.No.5238 of 2008 are referred to for the purpose of convenience.

3. The respondent herein filed R.C.No.113 of 2006 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioners contending that it is the landlord of the petitioners in respect of the R.C. schedule premises and that the petitioners have (i) committed willful default in payment of rent to the respondent and (ii) the respondent bona fidely requires the R.C. Schedule premises for its personal occupation.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed in the R.C. by petitioners contending that their landlord is Indira Seva Sadan, a charitable trust, located in the same building, but not the respondent-society; that the said trust is registered under the provisions of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; that through their representative Association i.e. Indira Seva Sadan Welfare Association, they had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad when the respondent sent demand notices to the petitioners to admit its ownership and to pay rents to it; that the Deputy Commissioner got a separate bank account opened in the name of Indira Seva Sadan Trust with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Saidabad Branch and directed the petitioners to deposit rents; and that they are depositing rents in the said account. They denied the allegation of willful default in payment of rents made by the respondents and contended that they have been depositing rents in the said bank account. They also contended that there is no bona fide requirement of the premises and the denial of title of the respondent is bona fide.

5. The petitioners thereafter filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the above two parties contending that it is just and necessary that they be impleaded as parties to the R.C. on account of the above facts.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent opposing their impleadment and contending that the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to the case for the purpose of deciding the lis involved in the case. It also contended that the proposed parties are in no way concerned with the R.C. schedule property; that it is duty of the respondents to prove jural relationship between the parties and seek eviction on the grounds alleged in the R.C.; and that the rights of third parties such as the proposed parties cannot be decided in the case.

7. By a Common Order dt.29-01-2007 in I.A.No.509 of 2006 in R.C.No.113 of 2006 and batch, the Rent Controller allowed the said applications. He noticed that an order dt.24-06-2002 in I.A.No.24 of 2002 in O.A.No.103 of 2001 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and another Order dt.25- 05-2005 in C.R.P.No.25 of 2002 was also passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments apart from an Order dt.29-06-2006 in W.A.No.719 of 2006 of this Court, permitting the petitioners therein to deposit rents in the bank account, referred to above; there is a dispute in relation to the claim of the respondents with respect to rent for R.C. schedule premises; that the dispute relating to ownership of the respondent is also involved apart from change in the name of the Trust; that these are pending before the Endowments Department; for effective adjudication of all questions raised in these proceedings, the presence of the proposed parties is indispensable; and in their absence, proper and effective adjudication of the controversy, is not possible. It held impleadment of the proposed parties in the R.C. would not amount to bringing the question of title in dispute, but would only pave the way for adjudication of the disputes effectively and completely.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed R.A.No.77 of 2007 and batch before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

9. By order dt.07-07-2007, the said appeal was allowed. The appellate Court held that a Rent Controller can only decide the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the eviction petitions and he cannot go into the ownership of the premises which is pending before the another Forum; it is for the respondents to prove that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between it and the petitioners and that it is entitled to recover rent from them; even if the proposed parties are impleaded as respondents in the R.C., the Rent Controller is disabled from deciding the issue of ownership from the respondent or the validity of the change of the Indira Seva Sadan Trust into a society by name Sangam Lakshmi Vidyapeet; therefore, the impleadment of proposed parties is unnecessary.

10. Challenging this order, the petitioners have filed these Revisions.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended the order passed by the appellate authority is contrary to law; that the application filed by the petitioners implead the proposed parties respective R.C.’s should have been allowed by the appellate authority as they are necessary parties; and that there is a bona fide denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant by the petitioners.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the orders passed by the appellate authority are correct and do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 227 of the Act; whether is a bona fide denial of title by the petitioners and whether there is a willful default in payment of rent by them, would depend on the existence of jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent; that the title to the R.C. schedule premises cannot be decided by the Rent Controller and therefore these revisions be dismissed.

13. There is no dispute that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC are applicable to proceedings under the Act as they are in no way conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. (G.Manikyamma (died by L.Rs. Vs. T.Seetharamaiah & Another [1] ). I n Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narsing Prasad and [2] Another , this Court following the decision of this Court i n Soni @ Bhuthulasi and Others Vs. Kunda Nageswara Rao and Another , held thus: [3] “In Soni v. K. Nageswar Rao, (1991 (3) ALT 200), the Division Bench of this Court in this case has held that in Rent Control Proceedings for eviction of a tenant by landlord, when third party raises disputed question of title, he is not entitled to get impleaded, but he can seek the relief in a regular civil suit on the question of title. It is further 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 also held 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 and, therefore, complicated questions of title shall not be decided 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. It is further held that so far as the third party seeking to get impleaded is concerned, he is not seeking a decision only incidentally on the question of title and so far as he is concerned, the question of title is the main question in which he is interested and normally, he has to go to the Civil Court for effective decision thereon.” It was reiterated that a third party raising disputed questions as to title is not entitled to get impleaded in a rent control proceeding and he should seek relief in a civil suit on the question of title.

14. In the present case, while the respondent states that the petitioners are its tenants, the petitioners contend that respondent is not their landlord or the owner of the R.C. schedule premises and that the Endowment Department is the owner of the said premises. They also contend that this Court in W.A.No.719 of 2006, vide order dt.29-06-2006, upheld an order dt.24-06-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and an order dt.25-05-2005 of the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad permitted the petitioners herein, who are all members of the Association which filed the said writ appeal, to deposit rent in accordance with the directions given by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in a bank account in the State Bank of Hyderabad. It is also their contention that pursuant to the above order, they have been depositing rents in the said bank account and are being issued receipts acknowledging receipt of the rents.

15. The question to be considered is whether the presence of the proposed parties are necessary for adjudication in the R.C. and whether the R.C. can be decided even in their absence.

16. As the respondent has filed R.C. for eviction of the petitioners, it is for the respondent to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners and also the grounds for seeking eviction. After the respondent discharges the said burden, it is open to the petitioners to establish that their denial of title is bona fide and that there is no willful default in payment of rents, inasmuch as Endowment Department is also claiming title in respect of the R.C. schedule premises and the petitioners are depositing rents in a bank account as per directions of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad.

17. To establish these facts, in my opinion, the presence of the proposed parties is not necessary. The petitioners can make use the material already available with them to establish these facts or they can summon the relevant records the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments or from the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments or by any such means establish their defence. For this purpose, the presence of the proposed parties in the suit is not essential.

18. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority under the Act does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 22 of the Act.

19. Therefore, all these revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO DT : 21-11-2013 [1] [2] [3] 1988 (2) ALT 333 2005 4) ALD 45 1991 (3) ALT 200