THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 144 OF 2014 Dated:05-09-2014 Between:
Sulochana Devi Sharma ... PETITIONER AND T. Narahari and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.144 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner filed R.C.No.429 of 2011 before the III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Courts, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent for eviction from the petition schedule properties. The 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.32 of 2013 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead him as respondent No.2 in the R.C. He pleaded that the premises were taken by him on rent from one Mr. G. Bikshapathi under registered Rental Agreement in respect of the petition schedule properties and recently he came to know about the pendency of the proceedings. He pleaded that the petitioner has no right vis-à-vis the property and that the 2nd respondent is not the tenant at all. The petitioner opposed the I.A., by filing a counter. She stated that earlier an attempt was made with the collusion of the 1st respondent to get a totally unrelated person impleaded in the R.C., and when that failed, the 1st respondent was pressed into service. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 25.10.2013. Hence, this revision.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner asserted title over the property and filed eviction petition against the 2nd respondent. In case, the sole respondent in the R.C is of the view that the petitioner does not have title over the property, it is for her to raise objection in this behalf. No relief was claimed against the 1st respondent. Even according to the 1st respondent, he is the tenant of one Mr.Bikshapathy. As long as Mr.Bikshapathy did not file any eviction petition, he should not have any objection or grievance. The petitioner contends that similar attempt was made through another person to scuttle the proceedings and that application was dismissed. The Rent Controller has presumed certain facts in favour of the 1st respondent by seeing Ex.P- 1, the summons that were issued to the 2nd respondent. It is just ununderstandable as to how the 1st respondent can be in possession of the summons issued to the 2nd respondent. This Court finds that the order passed by the Rent Controller is erroneous and contrary to law.
The C.R.P is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
05-09-2014
kh/ks