Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs T.V.N. Prasad

This revision-petition is preferred against the orders dated 1-12-1997 in I.A.No.396 of 1997 in RC.No.269 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord in R.C.No.269 of 1995. The respondent filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the premises which have been let out to the revisionpetitioner. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application denying the alleged wilful default and he also disputed the claim of bona fide requirement. The evidence has been let in on both sides and when the matter is posted for arguments, the tenant filed IA.No.396 of 1997 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of his counter adding para 5(a) to the effect that as successor of is mother, the respondent-landlord became the owner of the adjacent shop bearing No.34 and that the landlord also got issued notice to the tenant of that shop and as such the landlord could as well seek eviction of the tenant of that shop and the landlord filed the present eviction petition with a view to enhance the existing rent and that the alleged requirement is mala fide.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the landlord and the tenant, the learned Rent Controller dismissed that petition observing that the landlord has got the right to choose any of the premises owned by him for his requirement.

Aggrieved of that order, the tenant has come up with this revision petition.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller in rejecting the petition for amendment is erroneous; that the revision petitioner came to know subsequent to filing of the counter in the eviction petition that the landlord came into possession of a non-residential shop in the same building on third floor and as such the claim of the landlord that the suit premises is required bona fide is not maintainable, that the impugned order is not a speaking order and that the amendment can be allowed at any stage for adjudicating the matter in a proper way.

The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand submitted that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and as such no revision lies u/s 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control\\Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as ''the Act'') and, therefore, the present revision-petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord further contends that the revision petitioner has been adopting delatory tactics with a view to delay the proceedings; that the present application for amendment of his counter has been filed at the belated stage of arguments; that there are no merits in the petition; that the landlord has not come into possession of non-residential accommodation subsequent to the filing of the petition as alleged and that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

The point that arises for consideration is whether this Court can entertain the present revision petition either u/s 22 of the Act or u/s 115 of the CPC against the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller on 1-12-1997 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for amendment of his counter ? If it is so, whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on merits?

Admittedly the present revision petition has been filed u/s 22 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the present revision petition could be entertained u/s 22 of the Act or u/s 115 of Civil Procedure Code. For proper appreciation, it is necessary to extract Section 22 of the Act which reads as follows :

"22. Revision :-(1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by the Controller in execution u/s 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal u/s 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

From a reading of this section, it is clear that the Act provides for revision to High Courtagainst the order of the Rent Controller passed in execution u/s 15 of the Act or against an order of the appellate authority passed on appeal u/s 20 of the Act. Against no other order, revision is provided under this Section.

Admittedly, the impugned order here in is not an order passed by the Rent Controller in execution u/s 15 of the Act nor is it an order passed by the appellate authority on appeal u/s 20 of the Act. Thus, no revision is maintainable to this Court against the impugned order u/s 22 of the Act. In Pasupuleti Krishrtamitrthy v. Bondilli Bhavani Bai (1985 (2) ALT 421} the learned single Judge of this Court interpreted Section 22 of the Act to the same effect. Relying on that judgment, my learned Brother U.S. Raikote, J. in M. Nagender Rao v. B.M. Lakshmaiah (1996 (1) ALD 964) held to the effect that "against the order of the Rent Controller dated 3-12-1994 rejecting the petition filed by the tenant for amendment of a pleading, revision cannot be entertained u/s 22 of the Rent Control Act."

In support of the alternate submission made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that in case the revision petition is held to be not maintainable u/s 22 of the Act, he contends that the Rent Controller is a Court subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, this Court may exercise powers u/s 115 of CPC and consider the legality of the impugned order.

The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the present amendment has been filed only with a mala fide intention to drag on the proceedings after closure of the entire evidence on both sides and that the matter is posted for arguments and no amendment for pleadings can be entertained at the belated stage. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contends that the present contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the landlord has come into possession of a non-residential building subsequent to the filingof the eviction petition is incorrect; that the revision petitioner-tenant sought for amendment of his counter is only to take up the plea that the landlord by virtue of succession to his mother is entitled to a non-residential shop; that the landlord had issued a notice for eviction to the tenant of that shop; that the landlord can as well seek eviction of that tenant and that the present argument of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant has no basis and contrary to the amendment sought for.

It cannot be doubted that the Court of Rent Controller is a subordinate to this Court, but, it has to be seen whether the power of this Court u/s 115 of CPC is available at all in view of Sections 20 and 22 of the Act. In Dewaji Vs. Ganpatlal, the Apex Court held that "it cannot be disputed that if the Legislature intends to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, it must say so, expressly or by necessary implication", In the light of the ratio of this decision and considering the effect of Sections 20(4) and 22 of the Act, my learned Brother B.S. Raikote, J. in M Nagender Rao v. EM. Lakshmaiah (supra) (1996 (1) ALD 964) held that "the powers of revision u/s 115 of the CPC stands excluded and modified to the extent indicated u/s 20(4) read with Section 22 of the Rent Controller Act. Therefore, Section 115 of the CPC is by implication, excluded by the A.P. Rent Control Act". I am in full agreement with the said opinion of my learned Brother B.S. Raikote, J. Hence, the present revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC is also not maintainable.

Even on merits also, there are no justifiable grounds to allow the amendment sought for by the tenant. It may be a fact that the landlord succeeded after the death of his mother to a shop belonging to her which is under the occupation of another tenant. It may be a fact that the landlord had issued a notice of eviction to that tenant, but, it is not open to the revision petitioner-tenant to contend that the landlord can as well seek eviction of thatshop instead of the premises of which he is a tenant. Further, it is well settled that the landlord can seek eviction of the premises which is more suitable for his personal requirement. Thus, even on merits also, the amendment sought for by the tenant is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition filed for amendment is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the point is decided in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the revision petitioner-tenant.

In the result, I do not find any merits in this revision petition and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed with costs.