Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 193 (AP)

Janatha Shoe Mart v. Thota Satish

2012-02-22

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 04.04.2007, in R.C.A.No.4 of 2005, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, whereby he has confirmed the order, dated 03.10.2005, in I.A.No.1159 of 2004 in R.C.C.No.17 of 2000, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tenali. The petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises. One Palempati Sithamma was the landlady, who filed R.C.C.No.17 of 2000 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. During the pendency of the RCC, the landlady died. One Thota Satish (respondent No.1 herein) filed I.A.No.1159 of 2004 to permit him to come on record in place of the deceased landlady. The said application was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller by order, dated 03.10.2005, allowed the said application. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali by his order, dated 04.04.2007. Questioning both these orders, the present civil revision petition is filed. In support of his application to permit him to come on record, respondent No.1 pleaded that the landlady during her life time executed Will, dated 06.07.2003, wherein she has bequeathed the demised property in favour of one Palempati Sambaiah and appointed him as the executor of the said Will. He was also authorised to pursue R.C.C.No.17 of 2000 in case the landlady dies and to file necessary papers in the pending case and also authorised to receive the mesne profits. The landlady died on 09.06.2004. Contrarily, the petitioner has pleaded that the Will appears to be a fabricated one and in any event, respondent No.1 being only an executor, cannot come on record without the legatee getting himself impleaded in the case in the place of the deceased landlady. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing the application relied upon the definition 'landlord' in Section 2(vi) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and held that even an executor also falls within the said definition. The learned Rent Controller also held that the petitioner being only a tenant is not entitled to raise an objection as to the validity or otherwise of the Will. The lower appellate Court endorsed the view of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The learned Rent Controller also held that the petitioner being only a tenant is not entitled to raise an objection as to the validity or otherwise of the Will. The lower appellate Court endorsed the view of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. In essence, the dispute centres around whether the executor can be permitted to come on record in place of the landlady. There are no competing claims over the demised property. The petitioner is only a tenant, which has not set up title in itself. The questions before the learned Rent Controller in the RCC were whether the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent or not and whether he is liable to be evicted. It is therefore wholly incomprehensible as to how the petitioner is concerned with who should come on record in place of the deceased landlady. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that with the sole intention of prolonging the litigation, the petitioner has come out with a frivolous objection on the locus of respondent No.1 herein to come on record. In the face of the clear definition of landlord, which includes an executor, there can be no dispute that respondent No.1 has locus standi to come on record in place of the deceased landlord. Indeed, the petitioner has neither locus nor right whatsoever to object to respondent No.1 for coming on record. It is most regrettable that the tendency of dragging on the litigation pertaining to civil disputes by unscrupulous litigants has taken its deep roots in our judicial system. Even though time and again the Apex Court and the High Courts in our country have been expressing displeasure in no uncertain terms, we are not succeeding in curbing this menace. Despite sweeping amendments introduced to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 to cut down undue delays, they hardly have any impact. By using their ingenuity, the litigants obviously on the able legal advice are continuing to frustrate the earnest efforts of the Courts for early disposal of cases. The clever litigants as they are they do not heed to fair legal advice and often expect their lawyers to use all their experience and expertise to file series of interlocutory applications from the beginning of the litigation at every stage. The clever litigants as they are they do not heed to fair legal advice and often expect their lawyers to use all their experience and expertise to file series of interlocutory applications from the beginning of the litigation at every stage. Instances galore that even after closing of arguments after full-fledged trial they come out with applications for re-opening of the case on pretexts, such as, amendment of pleadings, filing additional documents, further examination of witnesses or examination of new witnesses, appointment of Advocate Commissioners, sending disputed documents for expert's opinion etc. Substantial time of the trial Courts is being consumed on disposal of these applications. The loosing party invariably approaches the appellate and revisional Courts, as the case may be. This is the typical example of one such case where the petitioner successfully invoked its remedy at all three stages by filing IA, appeal against order passed in the IA and a revision before this Court. It will not be a surprise if the petitioner approaches the Apex Court against the present order. While a litigant is entitled to avail his legal remedies for bona fide purposes, he cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the law and Courts. Such practice if not curbed will derail the judicial system and erode people's faith in the rule of law. These very litigants when occasion arises cry hoarse from the roof-tops criticising the judicial system in the country for long pendency and inordinate delays in disposal of the cases. Indubitably, the litigant public and the Bar are equal stakeholders along with the Bench in dispensation of justice. They should realise that unless they extend their whole hearted cooperation to the Bench in its endeavour for quick disposal of cases by avoiding resorting to filing frivolous petitions with the sole intention of dragging on the litigation, it will be well-nigh impossible for the Courts to reduce pendency and provide speedy justice to the litigant public. As noted above, the objections were raised only to prolong the litigation and to derive undue advantage of pendency of the case. The objections raised by the petitioner utterly lack bona fides. By filing the present civil revision petition, the petitioner is able to succeed in keeping the eviction petition pending for nearly eight years. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The objections raised by the petitioner utterly lack bona fides. By filing the present civil revision petition, the petitioner is able to succeed in keeping the eviction petition pending for nearly eight years. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. For indulging in frivolous and vexatious litigation, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The respondents are entitled to recover the costs from the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the RCC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, interim order, dated 12.10.2007, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.Nos.6163 and 6428 of 2007 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.