Santhosh Kumar Agarwal vs Devender Kumar

S. Ravi Kumar, J.—Tr.CMP.Nos.96, 105 & 106 of 2016 are filed seeking to transfer R.C.Nos.195 of 2015, 196 of 2015, 197 of 2015 from the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad to XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with suit in O.S.Nos.429 to 433 of 2015 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Tr.CMP.No.242 of 2016 is filed seeking transfer of R.C.No.11 of 2016 from the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad to XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to try along with O.S.No.922 of 2015 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Respondents opposed all these petitions mainly on the ground that Tr.CMPs are not maintainable and the case pending before the Rent Controller cannot be transferred to a Civil Court.

Heard both sides.

Both side advocates submitted arguments at length in support of their respective contentions.

There is no dispute with regard to factual aspect and the only point involved in these applications is a legal point particularly power of this Court under Section 24 of CPC.

Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these Tr.CMPs is whether R.C.Nos.195, 196 & 197/2015 and R.C.No.242/2016 are liable to be transferred to a Civil Court or not?

Point:- Advocate for transfer petitioners submitted that the land lord filed petitions before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent and as there is an agreement between parties in respect of quantum of rent and as petitioners filed suits for enforcing that agreement, these matters have to be tried by one Court to avoid conflicting decisions and conflicting findings.

On the other hand, it is the contention of the tenants that the petitions under Section 24 CPC are not maintainable as the Rent Control Act provide provision for transfer of cases. According to respondents, Rent Control Courts are created under special enactments and as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act, Appellate Authority alone has power to transfer cases from one Rent Control Court to another, therefore petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed. The other objection of the respondents is that a Civil Court cannot fix the fair rent and petitioners can only plead this agreement as a defence and Rent Controller cannot decide the genuineness or enforceability of agreement and therefore, the issue before the Civil Court and the issue before the Rent Controller are distinct and separate therefore, the apprehension of petitioners is not well founded.

Advocate for petitioners referred to decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court in S. Srinivas Rao v. High Court Of A.P., AIR 1989 AP 258; Mulki Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, AIR 1995 SC 2272; Penumatsa Narsimha Raju v. Andhra Pradesh Vidya Parishad, Machilipatnam, 2010 (2) ALD 462 = AIR 2010 AP 90; Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium, Adom v. Kolli Sanjeevamma, AIR 1991 AP 106; Pokuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Vinnakota Peda Nageswara Rao, 2000 (2) ALD 249; J. J. Lal Pvt.Ltd., v. M.R. Murali, 2002 (4) ALD 90 (SC) = AIR 2002 SC 1061; Gunda Rajanna v. P. Annapurna, 2005 (1) ALD 447; S. Purnachandra Rao v. Paleti Linga Rao, 2005 (4) ALD 183; Dilip v. Mohd. Azizul Haq, AIR 2000 SC 1976 and All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association v. State Of Kerala, (2016) 2 SCC 161.

In all those decisions, the point before the Courts was whether Rent Control is a persona designata or a Court and with regard to application of provisions of Limitation Act.

Advocate for respondents also referred to the following decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court and High Court:-

"Manta Subbaramayya v. V. Batchu Narasimha Swamy, AIR 1972 AP 186; S. Mohd. Ali and Sons v. V. Madhavarao, AIR 1964 AP 132; Jeeth Kaur v. P. Kondalamma S. A. No. 69 of 1980, 18.11.1982, Veerabahutla Adinarayana v. Balusu Rajarao, 2008 (2) ALD 510 = 2008 LawSuit 156 (AP); Binodlal Sagarmal (M/s.) v. Prem Prakash Gupta, CRP No. 5173 of 2003, Dated 24.06.2003, 2003 (5) ALD 222; Bevara Sriramulu v. Gorthi Ramakrishna Rao, CRP No. 3454 of 2012, dated 23.12.2013, 2014 (2) ALD 277; Shakuntala Devi v. Avtar Singh, S. A. No. 171 of 1988, dated 18.8.2004; Gollu Bhavani Sankar v. Bhogavalli Rajeswara Rao, CRP No. 3644 of 1999, dated 29.10.1999, 1999 (6) ALD 714 and Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, Civil Appeal No. 1305 of 1995, dated 12.07.1995".

The above referred decisions, are also on the point of application of the Limitation Act and the point whether Rent Controller is a persona designata or Court. In these petitions, the main controversy is whether a Rent Control Case can be withdrawn and transferred to a Civil Court to be tried along with a civil suit. This aspect was earlier decided by this Court in L.K. Phanesh Babu v. Mohd. Akbar 2003 (1) ALD 778. A similar dispute was involved in that case. A Tr.CMP., was filed seeking transfer of RCC from the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad to the Court of XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with a suit pending there. This Court, after examining decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court held as follows:-

"If we examine the facts of the present case, in the light of the above decisions relied upon both the parties, though it was held that the Rent Control Court is a Civil Court, but not in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, though it was held that where the provisions of the Rent Control Act are silent, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, but, as already held that the Rent Control Act and the Rules made thereunder are complete Code covering the proceedings under the said Act. Even with reference to the transfer of the Proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority, it is provided under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. But, however, there is no provision for transfer of a proceeding from the Rent Control Court to any other Civil Court. In fact, the powers of ordering eviction under the grounds specified under the Act are exclusively conferred on the specified or notified Courts or the authorities. Therefore, such power conferred by Notification under the provisions of the Act, cannot be conferred by this Court by transferring a rent control proceeding pending on the file of the Rent Controller to any Civil Court, as such powers are vested only in Government. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller to the Civil Court."

The above decision squarely applies to the case on hand and it was held in the above decision that it is not permissible to transfer Rent Control case to a Civil Court under Section 24 of CPC. Considering the above referred principle, the objection raised by respondents is upheld.

For these reasons, all the transfer petitions are dismissed and the Rent Controller & Civil Court shall decide the respective proceedings pending before them in accordance with law not being influenced by any of the observations made in this common order. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Tr.CMPs., shall stand dismissed.