MURLIDHAR JETHMAL BANG Vs. RANGANATHSINGH DIVANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application filed under section 26 of the Hyderabad Rent Act arises out of execution proceedings started by the petitioner before me to obtain the fruits of eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller on 31st of May, 1963. This decree was passed in respect of shop premises. This decree was confirmed by the Appellate Court and the tenant was unsuccessful in challenging the said decree. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree on 15th of June, 1964.

(2.) The petitioner-decree holder has sought actual possession of plot bearing No. 122/5 at Gunj, Latur, which was the subject-matter of the main Rent Control Suit No. 29 of 1961, which was finally decided by the Appellate Court as stated above. After the decree was passed in 1964 in regard to this shop and the plot, the decree-holder commenced its execution after a period of six years. He filed an execution petition on 26th September, 1970. Two objections were raised by the tenant. One objection related to the limitation, this is, that the execution is barred by limitation. The second objection was by way of answer to the admitted claim of eviction. It was stated that after the decree for eviction was made, a fresh tenancy under a compromise was created in respect of the very subject-matter in regard to which controversy was involved in the Rent Control case.

(3.) During the pendency of these proceedings, it appears, some evidence was also led. Finally, on 9th of October, 1973, an application was filed by the tenant judgement-debtor challenging the validity of the decree on the ground that the decree is passed by the Court, i.e., the Rent Controller, which lacked inherent jurisdiction. This application was based on the fact that an admission was made by the landlord-decree-holder in the notice, which he had issued prior to the suit, and also in his own evidence on oath in the Court. These admissions were the basis of challenging the inherent jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. It was stated that the decree related to an open plot on the admission made by the decree-holder and so, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction as provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rent Act"), did not extend to an open plot in view of the definition of the house given in section 2(b) of the Rent Act. This objection was upheld by the Executing Court by its judgement dated 26th August, 1974.