THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.2750 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, ('Act', for brevity) is directed by the petitioner/Decree Holder against the order, dated 11.02.2019, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, passed in E.A.No.24 of 2017 in E.P.No.5 of 2013 in R.C.C.No.6 of 2012.
2. Heard Mr. Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/DHr and Mr. Ch. Venkaiah, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claim petitioners. Respondent No.3 has not chosen to advance arguments.
3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
The schedule property and some other properties are the absolute properties of the claim petitioners having obtained the same under registered Will deed, dated 30.07.2001, executed by Badurunnisa, the mother of the 1st claim petitioner and maternal grandmother of the 2nd claim petitioner. The executant died on 11.04.2010. The schedule property of two rooms, tiled shops was gifted by Badarunnisa Begum Saheb to the claimants vide registered gift deed, dated 01.10.1992. The claimants let out the property to the tenant. While so, the 1st respondent filed R.C.C.No.6 of 2012 basing on a fabricated Will dated 29.01.2007 concealing the judgment, dated 21.01.2014 delivered in O.S.No.453 of 2010 filed by the 1st respondent disbelieving the said Will and obtained eviction decree. The claim petitioners are the original owners under the registered gift deed, dated 01.10.1992. The 1st respondent filed eviction EP in order to execute the order in R.C.C.No.6 of 2012. Hence, the instant petition was filed to set aside the delivery proceedings dated 10.06.2013 in 2 E.P.No.5 of 2013 in R.C.C.No.6 of 2012. The 1st respondent/DHr filed counter contending that he preferred appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.453 of 2010 and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent filed additional counter and contended that the claim petitioners filed O.S.No.307 of 2015 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru, in respect of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property. It is further contended that the Tribunal cannot entertain the petition, it being the Special Tribunal and cannot decide the title between the parties. Though various other pleadings have been advanced and contentions raised by the parties, they are not required to be reiterated herein for disposal of this revision petition.
4. It is mainly contended by the revision petitioner that no claim petition would arise before a Rent Controller as the Tribunal is not vested with any authority to decide the title in dispute and the authority of the Tribunal is to adjudicate on only the rents or eviction and it is only the Civil Court which can decide the dispute of title between the parties. The Tribunal has passed the order by taking recourse to Rule 23 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, ('the Rules').
5. Rule 23 (7) of the Rules reads as follows:
"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 3 against whom order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person."
A reading of the above provision makes it amply clear that the Tribunal is vested with the authority to decide the claim and incidentally, it may go into the title to the extent necessary to exercise its authority within the above said provision.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Ravu Elizebeth Rose v. Anguluri Menemma1, wherein the provision under Rule 23 (7) of the Rules was considered. In fact, in the said case, the question is whether the Rent Controller can decide on the dispute of title. Hence, the said decision may not be of much assistance to the respondents. But, in view of the clear provision under Rule 23(7), the contention of the revision petitioner challenging the impugned order is not tenable. The revision petitioner has not shown any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order on any other factual or legal grounds. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J 22nd February, 2022 RAR 1 2002 (3) ALD 713