Shaik Mohiddin vs Muvva Samba Murthy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5871 AP

          THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI


                           C. R.P No.166 of 2020

ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated

03.01.2020, passed in I.A.No.1290 of 2019 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2019

on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. Heard Sri V.Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the respondents

2 to 4. The 1st respondent died.

3. The case of the petitioners/appellants, as set out in the

affidavit filed in support of the application, in brief, is that the 1st

respondent filed R.C.C.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the

Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. During the

pendency of the said petition, the 1st respondent died and the

remaining respondents came on record. Except the sole testimony

of the 1st respondent as PW1, there is no documentary proof on the

alleged grounds urged by the 1st respondent. Even on demise of

the 1st respondent, the other respondents, though came on record,

did not choose to lead evidence to substantiate their claim as the

legal heirs of 1st respondent. The rents were paid regularly upto

BSB, J C.R.P.No.166 of 2020

date. However, irrespective of the evidence available on record, the

trial Court came to a wrong conclusion and passed eviction orders.

There are good grounds to succeed in the matter. As such, the

present petition under Section 20(2) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent

and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was filed seeking to grant stay of

operation of all further proceedings of the decree and judgment,

dated 03.06.2019 made in R.C.C.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the

Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed counter denying the petition

averments and contending that the learned Rent Controller, on

merits, passed orders on 03.06.2019 granting two months time to

the petitioners to vacate the petition schedule property. But, the

petitioners/appellants failed to comply with the said orders.

Subsequently, the respondents filed E.P.No.165 of 2019 for delivery

of the EP schedule property and the same is pending. Only with a

view to drag on the proceedings, the petitioners/appellants filed this

Rent Control Appeal with false grounds. There is no necessity to

grant stay of all further proceedings and if the petitioners/appellants

have good case, the respondents are ready to make submissions in

the appeal.

5. The trial Court, on hearing both sides, dismissed the petition.

BSB, J C.R.P.No.166 of 2020

6. Hence, the aggrieved petitioners/appellants are before this

Court in this revision. In the grounds of revision, it is mainly urged

that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application

without looking into the memo filed by the petitioners and without

appreciating the facts regarding the deposit of rents and that by

dismissing the application, the appeal preferred by the appellants

has become infructuous.

7. The appellate Court has dismissed the petition mainly on the

ground that the petitioners/appellants have failed to show that rents

are being regularly paid and it is their burden to show that the rents

have been regularly paid. Therefore, the revision petitioners/

petitioners/appellants vehemently contended that the amount of

rent is being regularly deposited in Court vide challan photostat

copies of which are enclosed with the revision petition and the

appellate Court failed to consider them. It is further contended that

the petition was not at all opposed by the respondent on the ground

of non-payment of rents regularly, yet, the appellate Court has

mistakenly dismissed the petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that no notice has been given about the said deposits and

that would amount to default in payment of rents and thus, the

petitioners are not entitled to the relief of interim order of stay of

BSB, J C.R.P.No.166 of 2020

operation of the proceedings of the decree and judgment impugned

in the appeal. He further submitted that already E.P.No.165 of

1997 was filed for enforcement of the impugned decree and the

matter in the appeal in RCA 4 of 2019 was already heard on behalf

of the appellant and the matter is coming up for hearing these

respondents and therefore, there is no need to grant any stay since

the appeal itself would be disposed of on merits.

9. Though photostat copies of the deposit of rents for certain

period during the year 2019 were filed by the appellants, no further

proof regarding continuous payment of rents is shown before this

Court, though the Court below declined the relief of interim stay on

the similar ground. The respondents contradicted the fact of deposit

of rents regularly by the appellants. Under these circumstances, no

order of stay can be granted. Anyhow, since the appeal is ripe for

hearing and as per the representation, it was partly heard, the

appellate Court can be directed to expeditiously dispose of the

appeal.

10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The

appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period

of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

BSB, J C.R.P.No.166 of 2020

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 05th September, 2022 RAR