Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sigatapu Vinoda Baby Vinoda vs M Lova Raju on 21 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1911 and 1912 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Respondent No.2 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 filed I.A.No.7 of
2018 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of
Practice seeking to permit her to represent her
children/respondent Nos.3 and 4 as GPA holder. By an order
dated 24.09.2018 learned Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram
dismissed that application. Challenging that, C.R.P.No.1911 of
2019 is filed.
2. Respondent No.2 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 filed I.A.No.6 of
2018 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 7 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated
28.11.2016 and the learned trial Court by an order dated
24.09.2018 dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by that,
C.R.P.No.1912 of 2019 is filed.
3. Sri M.Lova Raju, who is stated to be a tenant of a
premises, filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 against four respondents and
that R.C.C. was filed under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking
permission of the learned Rent Controller to permit him to
deposit the monthly rent from June, 2014 and permit him to
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.Nos.1911 & 1912 of 2019
continue to deposit till the disposal of the case and for costs and
such other reliefs.
4. While the matter was pending, some of the respondents
failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and
therefore, they were set ex parte on 28.11.2016. With a prayer
to set aside that order, they preferred I.A.No.6 of 2018 under
Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. A counter was
filed by the tenant. After due hearing, learned trial Court
passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 stating that the
petition was supposed to be filed within 30 days from the date
the petitioners were set ex parte, but it was filed beyond that
period and therefore, the petition was barred by limitation and
so it was to be dismissed. With that reasoning, the said petition
was dismissed. In challenge to that, C.R.P.No.1912 of 2019 is
filed stating that the causes mentioned in the sworn affidavit
filed in support of the petition before the learned trial Court
were not properly considered and there would be no prejudice to
allow the petition and permit the petitioners to contest and they
sought for setting aside the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that
respondent No.1, being a tenant, has admitted about the legal
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.Nos.1911 & 1912 of 2019
status of the petitioners as landlords and the prayer before the
learned Rent Controller is only to permit him to deposit rents
and so saying learned counsel supported the trial Court's order.
6. On consideration of the submissions on both sides and
material placed on record, it is to be stated that the impugned
order refers to Rule 8(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, which provided 30 days
to move an application to set aside ex parte order. The
impugned order also refers to a judgment of this Court if the
application was not moved within 30 days, there should be
another application seeking condonation of delay in presenting
that application. While the principles mentioned in the
impugned order are correct, what has to be noticed is these
revision petitioners in their sworn affidavit before the learned
Rent Controller stated that they did not receive notices in the
R.C.C. proceedings and therefore, they could not appear on the
date of hearing and they had come to know about the pendency
of proceedings before learned Rent Controller only when they
received reply notice from the tenant. In such factual situation,
the learned Rent Controller ought to have given an opportunity
for these revision petitioners to move an application for
condonation of delay also. Instead of doing that, it entertained
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.Nos.1911 & 1912 of 2019
the application and dismissed it. It is to be further noticed that
between the same parties, a suit for injunction filed by the
tenant as against these landlords is also pending before the civil
Court. It is in these circumstances, this Court finds merit in
C.R.P.No.1912 of 2019.
7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 in
I.A.No.6 of 2018 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of learned
Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram is set aside. These revision
petitioners are permitted to move an application seeking for
condonation of delay in presenting their application to set aside
the ex parte order. After giving such necessary opportunity to
these revision petitioners, learned Rent Controller shall dispose
of the applications in accordance with law.
8. Out of the four landlords, the second one is mother and
third and fourth one are her children. The children allegedly
gave a General Power of Attorney empowering their mother to
represent the matter on their behalf by virtue of a written
document dated 06.10.2014. In view of that, she/mother filed
I.A.No.7 of 2018 before the learned Rent Controller praying that
in terms of Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice the learned Rent
Controller may permit her to represent her children. By an
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.Nos.1911 & 1912 of 2019
order dated 24.09.2018, the learned Rent Controller dismissed
that petition stating that since it dismissed the above referred
I.A.No.6 of 2018, it is in the fitness of things to dismiss it. Since
order in I.A.No.6 of 2018 is now set aside, the order in I.A.No.7
of 2018 shall also be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
Therefore, I.A.No.7 of 2018 shall be heard afresh and be
disposed of by the learned Rent Controller.
9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 21.09.2022
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.Nos.1911 & 1912 of 2019
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1911 and 1912 of 2019
Date: 21.09.2022
Ivd
