Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 997 (AP)

Hazari Sanjay Singh v. S. Kondaiah

2014-08-07

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2014
Judgment : Respondents 1 and 2 are spouses. The petitioner is their tenant. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S No. 562 of 2003 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioner. In his written statement, the petitioner admitted that he is a tenant of respondents 1 and 2. However, he raised the plea that the rent is only Rs.600/- excluding electricity charges and in that view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable. The suit was dismissed on 31-08-2006 accepting that plea. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C No. 83 2007 against the petitioner for eviction pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, personal requirement and damage to the premises. During the pendency of the R.C, the 2nd respondent died and the children of respondents 1 and 2 were brought on record. The RC was allowed and the order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Thereupon, he filed R.A No. 230 of 2010 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. In the rent appeal, the petitioner filed I.A No. 34 of 2013 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit him to amend the counter filed in R.C No. 83 of 2007. He wanted to plead that respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed a registered settlement deed in favour of their sons and the latter in turn executed an agreement of sale in favour of a third party. It is also alleged that O.S No.795 of 2011 was filed in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the persons in whose favour agreement of sale was executed. The petitioner wanted to incorporate these and other relevant facts in the counter. The application was opposed by the respondents. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 11-04-2014. Hence, the revision. Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a tenant of the respondents. R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and the order of eviction was passed. Hence, the revision. Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a tenant of the respondents. R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and the order of eviction was passed. At the stage of appeal, the petitioner wants to amend the counter filed in the R.C. Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended with the addition of the proviso. It prohibits amendment of the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences. In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at the stage of appeal. The learned Chief Judge took note of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that amendment at this stage is not permissible. Second and more important reason is that the proposed amendment does not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at all. Even if the execution of deed of settlement by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal. As of now, the respondents did not part with their title to the property. Mere pendency of a suit for specific performance filed by a third party against the respondents cannot be a ground to resist the eviction proceedings. Even while admitting that he is the tenant of the respondents, the petitioner is creating every possible trouble for the respondents and is squatting on the property. This Court does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and no interference is warranted with the order under revision. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.