Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 64 (AP)

Ravu Elizebeth Rose v. Anguluri Munemma

2002-01-23

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2002
DUBGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the landlord - decree holder in RCC No. 83 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry. ( 2 ) THE brief admitted facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows. The revision petition filed RCC No. 83 of 1986 against Jala Narayanamma seeking her eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The landlord filed IA No. 1575 of 1987 under Section 11 (4) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act ). The said petition was allowed on 13-10-1987 directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent by 31-10-1987 failing which the tenant shall put the landlord in vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. The tenant did not pay the arrears. The tenant filed IA No. 2724 of 1987 to review the orders passed by the Rent Controller in IA No. 1575 of 1987. The review application was dismissed on 3-12-1987. Against the said order, the tenant filed RC No. 23 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The said appeal was dismissed on 18-6-1991. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed EP No. 16 of 1987 seeking delivery of petition schedule premises in pursuance of the orders passed in IA No. 1575 of 1987. When Amin went for execution of the delivery warrant, A. Munemma, the respondent in this revision petition, obstructed the delivery of possession to the landlord. She also filed E. A. No. 25 of 1988 claiming right and possession over the petition schedule premises. The said petition was allowed on 18-1-1989 and the parties were directed to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy and the execution petition was closed on 18-1-1989. Against the order in EA No. 25 of 1988, the landlord filed an appeal in RCA No. 4 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The said appeal was dismissed on 29-6-1990. ( 4 ) RCA No. 23 of 1987 filed by the tenant against the order passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act was dismissed by the appellate Court on 18-6-1991. The said order has become final. The said appeal was dismissed on 29-6-1990. ( 4 ) RCA No. 23 of 1987 filed by the tenant against the order passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act was dismissed by the appellate Court on 18-6-1991. The said order has become final. After disposal of RCA No. 23 of 1987 by the appellate Court, the landlord filed EP No. 22 of 1991 on 3-10-1991 seeking delivery of possession of the petition schedule property to her. She obtained delivery of the premises concerned on 15-10-1991. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed EA No. 37 of 1991 seeking restoration of possession of the petition schedule premises. The decree-holder landlord opposed the said petition. The Rent Controller allowed the said petition on 27-9-1997. The Rent Controller held that the respondent herein is entitled for restoration of possession of the petition schedule premises. Aggrieved by that order, the landlord - decree holder preferred the present revision petition. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended as follows. The order in EA No. 25 of 1989 is non est. It is for the third party namely, the respondent in this revision petition to file a suit for declaration of her title and as she has not filed any civil suit so far, she is not entitled to seek restoration of possession of the property already delivered to the decree holder. The Rent Controller cannot decide the dispute relating to title between the tenant and a third party. It is also his contention that when once delivery was effected to the decree holder, the only remedy available for the third party is to file a civil suit seeking declaration of title and for delivery of possession. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Soni v. K. Nageswara Rao, 1991 (3) ALT 200 . It was observed therein that it is not the intention of the Legislature that complicated questions of title are to be adjudicated by the Rent Controller and the proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit for deciding the dispute as to title raised by him and obtain appropriate relief. It was observed therein that it is not the intention of the Legislature that complicated questions of title are to be adjudicated by the Rent Controller and the proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit for deciding the dispute as to title raised by him and obtain appropriate relief. It was observed that a third party has no right to get impleaded in the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller for the purpose of raising a dispute as to title. This decision, in my considered opinion, has no application to the facts on hand. The respondent herein did not seek to come on record in the main eviction petition as a respondent in the said petition. What she did was to object for the delivery of possession of the disputed premises when the Court bailiff tried to deliver vacant possession of the same to the revision petitioner. It does not amount to third party coming on record in the main eviction petition as one of the parties and thus seeking adjudication of a title dispute relating to the property in question. ( 7 ) THE provision in Rule 23 (7) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1961 is the relevant provision for disposal of the present revision petition. The said provision reads as follows :rule 23 (7) - If such execution is resisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, the Controller may hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance and obstruction still continues shall issue a warrant to evict the said person by force and deliver the possession of the building to the person entitled for possession in pursuance of the order of eviction, and if he is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in the possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. ( 8 ) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that if a third party resists and obstructs execution, the Rent Controller has to hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by the third party claiming in good faith to be in possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the tenant, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the respondent herein resisted and obstructed the delivery when the decree holder- revision petitioner filed EP No. 16 of 1987 seeking delivery of the petition schedule premises in pursuance of the orders in IA No. 1575 of 1987. Admittedly, the petition filed in EA No. 25 of 1989 by the respondent herein was allowed and appeal against that order was also dismissed and the orders have become final. It is, therefore, clear that the Rent Controller was satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by the respondent herein claiming in good faith to be in possession of the building on her own account. When such an order was passed, it is not for the third party to file a civil suit to establish her own title to the disputed property. Suppose, if the Rent Controller was satisfied that the said resistance or obstruction caused by the respondent herein was not in good faith and if he had allowed the execution proceedings to continue, then it would have been for the respondent herein to institute civil proceedings in a civil Court for establishing her own title and right for possession of the disputed property. In the present case, as good faith of the respondent was accepted by the Rent Controller, it is for the revision petitioner - decree holder to take recourse to a civil Court and establish her own title and right to be in possession of the petition schedule property and obtain necessary decree from the civil Court. However, the decree holder did not adopt such procedure. However, the decree holder did not adopt such procedure. The decree holder - revision petitioner kept quiet for some time and after disposal of the appeal in RC No. 23 of 1987 by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry she commenced fresh execution proceedings by filing EP No. 22 of 1991 on 3-10-1991 and then successfully obtained delivery of the disputed property to her on 15-10-1991. There is no dispute that while filing EP No. 22 of 1991, the decree holder suppressed that previously she filed EP No. 16 of 1987 seeking the same relief. The said execution petition was disallowed in view of the orders passed in EA No. 25 of 1988 instituted by a third party. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Rent Controller in directing restoration of possession of the disputed property to the third party namely, the respondent herein. I do not accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once delivery was effected, the remedy open to the third party is only to file a civil suit and establish the title and seek possession thereof. In the present circumstances of the case, it is for the decree holder-revision petitioner to obtain necessary orders from the civil Court regarding her title and the right to be in possession of the disputed property. The order in EA No. 25 of 1988 can, under no circumstances, be construed as non est, The said order is valid and binding on the decree holder. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.