M/S. The Hyderabad Cut Piece Cloth ... vs Smt. Sumitra Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 3824 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6702 of 2018

ORDER:

Aggrieved by order dated 03.04.2017 passed in R.A.No.258 of

2018 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate Court),

Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 07.11.2014 passed in

R.C.No.350 of 2005 by the IV Additional Rent Controller (Rent

Controller), Hyderabad, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. The petitioner/association represented by its Secretary,

Mr. Kapoor Chand Gupta, filed an eviction petition in RC.No.350 of

2005 before the Rent Controller on the ground of willful default and

sub-letting the property. RC.No.350 of 2005 was taken up for enquiry

along with RC.No.103 of 2005 filed by the respondent No.2 for deposit

of rent under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control) Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). By common order dated

07.11.2014, RC.No.350 of 2005 and RC.No.103 of 2005 were

dismissed.

3. The Rent Controller, having held that willful default was

committed by the respondents and there was sub-letting of the

premises, dismissed RC.No.305 of 2005 on the ground that the

Secretary of the petitioner/association does not have authorization

from the Executive Committee to institute legal proceedings.

The respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging dismissal of

RC.No.103 of 2005. The petitioner filed RA.No.258 of 2014 challenging

order dated 07.11.2014 passed in RC.No.305 of 2005. The Rent

Controller and the appellate Court came to the conclusion that on a

perusal of copy of the constitution of the petitioner/association, it was

found that either it is for the President of the petitioner/association or

for the executive committee to authorize a person to act legally on

their behalf. But in the present case, the petitioner failed to adduce

any evidence except oral evidence to show that P.W.1, who is the

Secretary of the petitioner/association, was authorized by the

executive committee as per the constitution of their association as

shown in Ex.R1. By holding that P.W.1 is not authorized to file eviction

proceedings against the respondents on behalf of the

petitioner/association and that even if he is Secretary of the

association, he is not authorized to file eviction petition or initiate any

legal proceedings, the appeal was dismissed.

4. Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the Secretary of the petitioner/association is authorized

to sign documents including legal matters and also represent legal

matters, which requires authorization; the petitioner filed I.A.No.771

of 2014 for receiving certified copy of minutes of meeting cum

resolution passed by the executive committee dated 05.07.2005

authorizing the petitioner to initiate legal proceedings, as additional

evidence. The said application was not considered and disposed of by

the appellate Court. The executive committee is authorized under the

constitution to institute legal proceedings. The petitioner, representing

the executive committee, has authority to sign the pleadings on behalf

of the association and conduct court proceedings.

5. Mr. Gopesh Bung, learned counsel appearing for

Mr. Murlinarayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent No.2,

submitted that the petitioner does not have authorization to file the

rent control case. It is either the President or any person authorized by

the executive committee has the authority to file eviction petition on

the basis of the Ex.R1 constitution. The Rent Controller and the

appellate Court have rightly dismissed the eviction petition and the

appeal filed by the petitioner. There are no merits in the revision

petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view

of the decision of the Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v.

NARESH KUMAR1 and the decision of the High Court of Gauhati in

M/S. JAYSHREE ENTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF

ASSAM2 there is an implied authorization and the Courts below were

not right in dismissing the eviction petition and the appeal.

7. It is not in dispute that I.A.No.771 of 2014 was filed by the

petitioner for receiving true extract/certified copy of the minutes of the

meeting and resolution passed by the petitioner/association on

05.07.2005. Ignoring the said petition, the appellate Court passed

impugned order dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal. In the

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the

matter be remanded back to the appellate Court.

8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside

the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 in R.A.No.258 of 2014.

The matter is remitted back to the appellate Court for de novo

enquiry. The appellate Court shall pass orders in I.A.No.771 of 2014

filed by the petitioner for receiving document dated 05.07.2005 by

hearing the said IA along with RA.No.258 of 2014. The Court below

shall dispose of the rent appeal within a period of two (2) months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this

Court has not made any observations with regard to the minutes of

the meeting/resolution dated 05.07.2005. The Court below shall

1996 LF (SC) 2081

2019 LF (Gau0 244

consider the matter on merits and pass judgment in R.A.No.258 of

2014 after hearing both parties.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 29, 2021 DSK