THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3126 AND 3127 OF 2011 Dated:21-11-2014
Between
Smt. V. Saritha ... PETITIONER AND Smt. L. Madhu Manjani and five others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3126 AND 3127 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions are between the same parties, but in respect of different proceedings. Since the subject matter is also identical, they are disposed of through a common order.
The petitioner filed R.C Nos. 5 and 61 of 2010 in the Court of Principal Rent Controller-cum-XVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the 1st respondent under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) for fixation of fair rent in respect of two separate premises under the occupation of the 1st respondent. The enquiry into the RCs is in progress. The 1st respondent filed I.A Nos.187 of 2011 and 261 of 2010 in the RCs under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with a prayer to implead respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein. She pleaded that the premises are originally owned by one V. Satyanarayana and though the petitioner is claming rights in respect of the property under a Will, there is serious doubt about it and that respondent Nos.2 to 6 who are the legal heirs of late Satyanarayana deserve to be added as parties. After hearing all the parties, the trial Court allowed the applications through separate orders dated 07-07-2011. Hence, these two revisions.
Heard Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harender Pershad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent did not dispute that she is the tenant in respect of the premises in question. The petitioner filed the RCs for fixation of fair rent. No other person has come forward claiming rights of ownership. It is not as if the 1st respondent disputed the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the rents. If that were to be so, she would have filed an application under Section 8 of the Act for deposit of the rights. Further, under the Act, landlord need not be the absolute owner. It is sufficient if he has got the right to collect the rents. There was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to file the applications, particularly when respondent Nos.2 to 6 did not themselves feel the necessity to get themselves impleaded.
The C.R.Ps are accordingly allowed and the orders passed in I.A Nos.187 of 2011 and 261 of 2010 are set aside.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-11-2014 ks