Shaik Khadar Babu vs Md Kareemulla
2022 Latest Caselaw 948 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 948 AP
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shaik Khadar Babu vs Md Kareemulla on 22 February, 2022

                 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

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

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