SONI Vs. K NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Lakshmana Rao, J. The point that arises for decision is whether a third-party who disputes the title of the landlord filing the eviction petition, could seek to get impleaded under Order 1, rule 10 (2) C.P.C. and seek an adjudication on the question of title. A. division Bench of this Court consisting of Jayachandra Reddy, J (as he then was) and Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J, in G.Manikyamma vs. T.Seetharamaiah has held that the third-party raising a dispute as to title could be impleaded under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. because, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller. However, Muktadar, J. in Sitarama Rao vs. Ratanlal Panwar and T.L.N.Reddy, J in Kotamma vs. Kotilingam Chetty observed that the Rent Controller cannot decide complicated questions of title and a similar view was earlier expressed by K.V.L.Narasimham, J(as he then was) in Lingayya vs. Lakshminarasamma .

(2.) It has, however, been argued before us for the landlords by Sri V.Ravindra Rao and Sri M.SPrasad that it is one thing to say that Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. applies to proceedings before the Rent Controller and another thing to say that the third parly could seek to raise a question of title for decision in the Rent Control Court. They contend that the implication in the proviso to Sec. 10(1) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is that all parties could be impleaded under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C so long as they do not raise any question of title for adjudication before the civil court. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddi and Sri M. V.Ramana Reddi for the proposed parties that once it is accepted that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings before the Rent Controller and that, therefore, Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. applies, it cannot be contended that only such third parties who do not raise questions of title, can be impleaded. They contend that once Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. applies, "all questions involved" in the suit must include all questions of title relating to the property and the said words cannot be restricted to "all questions between the parties to the suit" in view of the Division Bench judgment of Kondaiah (as he then was) and P.Ramachandra Raju, J, in Khaja Abdul vs. Mahabub Saheb.

(3.) So far as the general question as to whether the provisions of the C.P.C. apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller is concerned, it is sufficient to refer to the guarded language in the Division Bench judgmentin Harikishan Singh vs. B.Narayana wherein it was observed that the C.P.C. does apply provided there was no adequate provision in the Act or Rules and provided it does not offend the Scheme and Purpose of the Act. Ekbote and Kuppuswami, JJ (as they then were) observed as follows: