Single judge dismissed the tenant's revision petition challenging the eviction Rent Controller's order dismissing an application under Section 25 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act to verify jurisdictional survey details.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.4905 of 2009
ORDER:
This revision is directed against the order, dated 18-092009, passed in I.A.No.277 of 2009 in R.C. No.85 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed under Section 25 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.
Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the respondent in R.C.No.85 of 2006 are that M/s.Krishna Metal Industries Private Limited, Attapur, is the owner of the R.C. schedule premises and M/s.Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Attapur Village, is the tenant of the said premises. Tenancy commenced in 1990. The initial rent was Rs.200/- and subsequently the rent has been enhanced and present rent is Rs.1,250/-. The landlord filed R.C.No.85 of 2006 seeking eviction of M/s.Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Private Limited represented by its Director Mr.Vishal Goyal on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents, altered the structures of the premises and caused damage to the premises. The tenant resisted the application by taking various pleas. One of the pleas advanced by him is that the Court of the Rent Controller at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction as the alleged premises is situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The landlord adduced his evidence and
thereafter the tenant commenced the evidence on its behalf. The tenant filed I.A.No.277 of 2009 under Section 25 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal to produce the village plans (Tonch) for Sy.Nos.479, 478, 500/1, 501 and 502 and also 1-B register in respect of the survey numbers to know as to whether the said survey numbers form part of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said application has been resisted by the landlord. In the counter filed by the landlord it is specifically stated that the jurisdiction aspect has been decided in O.S.No.1126 of 1980 on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the counteraffidavit filed by the landlord, which reads as hereunder:
“In reply to the averments made in paras 1 and 2 of the affidavit it is humbly submitted that it is true that the respondent company herein has filed the above R.C. for eviction in respect of the Schedule property. It is true that the matter was posted thrice for further evidence of the petitioner herein. It is denied that the schedule property forms a part of revenue jurisdiction of the Attapur Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R.District. It is further submitted that schedule property bearing H.No.13-6824/1, comes under Hyderabad Municipal limits as on the date of filing of the R.C. It is pertinent to submit here that in suit O.S.No.1126 of 1980 on the file of the Hon’ble IX Junior Civil Judge, C.C.Court, Hyderabad, against Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in the issue relating to H.Nos.13-6-824/1 and 2 coming under the limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the Hon’ble Court in its finding, in the concluding lines of para 15 at page 25 of its Judgment, observed that the H.Nos.136-824/1 and 2 are within the limits of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The said judgment has become
final and hence the petition schedule property since is a part of 13-6-824/1 comes under the MCH limits. Copy of the judgment is filed herewith.
With reference to the averment made by the petitioner herein to direct the Tahsildar, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R. District to produce the village plans (tonch) for various survey numbers along with 1-B register, it is submitted that this is a R.C. filed for eviction and the petitioner herein treating it as if there is a title dispute and in order to protract the litigation filed the present application. It is pertinent to submit that the tenant company is very much aware of the above referred judgment as its Director Mr.S.N.Bansal, who endorsed the counter to the main R.C. Petition, was representing the plaintiff in the said suit. This confirms that the intention of the tenant company is only to delay the matter on all possible grounds.”
The learned Additional Rent Controller on hearing the counsel for both parties and perusing the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the tenant failed to make out any valid ground to summon the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, along with Village Plans (Tonch) etc., thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated, 18-09-2009. Hence, this revision.
This revision came to be admitted on 22-10-2009. An order of interim stay came to be granted on even date vide C.R.P. M.P. No.6728 of 2009. Subsequently, the landlord entered appearance and filed C.R.P. M.P. No.6999 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the C.R.P. is taken up for final hearing.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that the petitioner/tenant is not bound by any of the observations made in O.S.No.1126 of 1998 and therefore the issue as to whether the R.C. schedule premises falls within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or outside the jurisdiction is required to be examined afresh and for which purpose the documents such as Village Plans (Tonch) for Sy.Nos.479, 478, 500/1, 501 and 502 and also 1-B register are essential. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be sound on the first blush, but on close scrutiny of the material brought on record, I do not detain myself long to reject the same. The judgment copy in O.S.No.1126 of 1980 has been marked as Ex.A13 in R.C. M/s. Krishna Metal Industries Private Limited, Attapur represented by S.N.Bhansal is the plaintiff in the suit. Now, S.N.Bhansal is the Director of M/s.Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, which is the tenant of the R.C. schedule premises. Such is the situation the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant that the observations made in the suit does not bind it has no substance. The learned Rent Controller having considered the material brought on record in right perspective dismissed the application filed by the tenant. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 12th November, 2009. skmr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.4905 of 2009
Date : 12-11-2009
Between : M/s.Tirupati Roler Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Attapur .. Petitioner
And M/s.Krishna Metal Industries (P) Ltd., Attapur .. Respondent
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Controller's order dismissing the application to summon Tahsildar to verify jurisdiction is correct.
Whether the petitioner company is bound by observations in a prior suit where its representative was adversary counsel.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Tirupati Roler Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Attapur
M/s.Krishna Metal Industries (P) Ltd., Attapur
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
