L K PHANESH BABU Vs. MOHAMMAD AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer CMP is filed by the Petitioners, who are Respondents in RCC No. 350 of 2000 seeking to transfer the same from the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad to the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad to be tried along with O. S. No. 527 of 2001 filed by the present Petitioners against the Respondents herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

(2.) It is stated that the Respondents 1 and 2 filed RCC No. 350 of 2000 against the Petitioner's father impleading him as the sole Respondent when he was alive and eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, bona fide requirement of the premises for the Petitioners therein and denial of title by the Respondent/Tenant. Apart from seeking vacant possession from the Respondents, it is also sought for direction for arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 50,704.00, in addition for direction to pay the future rents of Rs. 532.00 per month from the date of application till the date of delivery. After entering appearance by the Respondents, who is the father of the Petitioners, he died. Latter the Petitioners' mother as well as the Petitioners herein were impleaded as legal representatives. Subsequently, the Petitioners' mother also died on 1-7-2002 and the present Petitioners, who are the legal representatives, are the Respondents in the rent control petition. It is further stated that during the life time of the Petitioners' mother, along with the Petitioners she filed O. S. No. 527 of 2001 against the Respondents herein in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court i.e., XIII Additional Chief Judge, CCC. Hyderabad. The said suit was for a direction to the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs from the plaintiffs and execute the sale deed in their favour at her expense, in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 20-3-1993, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Sri L. K. Narayana Swamy, father of the Petitioners. If the 1st defendant failed to execute the sale deed, seeking to execute such sale deed by the Court on behalf of the 1st Respondent in favour of the plaintiffs and further to declare that the sale deed dated 1-5-2000, said to have been executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as sham, nominal, fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs and for other incidental reliefs. It is also stated that the first defendant filed her written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale dated 20-3-1993 in favour of the Petitioners' father and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief sought for in the suit. According to the Petitioners, the questions of fact and law raised in the Rent control Case as well as in the suit filed by the Petitioners are similar and hence it is expedient in the interest of the justice that both the cases be tried by the one Court to avoid conflicting decisions, being rendered. Hence, the present transfer CMP.

(3.) A counter has been filed disputing and denying the averments made in the petition. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners have not stated true and correct facts. It is stated that the 2nd Respondent Smt. D. Suvarna purchased Plot No. 275 in Salarjung Colony from Ideal Co-operative Housing Society Limited, under a registered sale deed, dated 23-11-1978 and constructed a house after obtaining the necessary permission and the said house was given House No. 9-4-1986/275. After construction she herself was residing in a portion of the house and let out the other portion of the premises to late L. K. Narayana Swamy, father of the Petitioners herein. After the marriage, the 2nd Respondent has shifted to Polavaram in West Godavari District. It is 'also stated that the 1st Respondent herein purchased the said property from the 2nd Respondent under two registered sale deeds dated 1-5-2000 as Documents Nos. 1038 and 1039. After the sale the house, which was in the possession of the 2nd Respondent, was delivered to the 1st Respondent and Insofar as the portion let out to late Narayana Swamy, it was attorned by handing over the letters of attornment to the said tenant. It Is stated that subsequently the 2nd Respondent filed O. S. No. 3847 of 1993 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, CCC for ejectment of the tenant. But, however, the said suit was not pursued by the 2nd Respondent. Hence, the same was dismissed for default on 9-4-1997. Subsequently, late Narayana Swamy filed RC No. 60 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under S. 8(5) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (herein after referred to 'the Act'), stating that the landlord stopped receiving the rents from August, 1990 in order to brand him as a defaulter. As such he has sent the rents through Money Order, which was also returned as refused. Subsequently, a legal notice dated 29-12-1990 was issued calling upon the landlord to furnish her Bank Account, so as to enable him to deposit the rents into her account. But the said notice was also refused. It is stated that the said letters were addressed to the 2nd Respondent with a wrong name as well as to wrong address and thereafter as per the orders of the Rent Controller the said tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 13, 136.00. Subsequently, when the said tenant tried to break the door separating the two portions and was trying to prevent the 1st Respondent and his men from using the other portion, he was constrained to file O.S. No. 2473 of 2000 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, CCC for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the tenant filed a written statement alleging that he had entered into on agreement of sale with reference to the suit schedule property and the second Respondent received considerable amount. However, since whereabouts of the said lady were not known and also due to the financial stringency, he could not take any steps to get the sale deed. Further, it is stated that the registered sale deeds obtained by the 1st Respondent were fabricated and bogus. The Petitioners filed W. P. No. 9746 of 2001 without impleading the Respondents and obtained separate water and power connections. According to the Respondents, the Rent Control Petition pending on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller cannot be transferred to be tried along with O. S. No. 527 of 2001. The relief sought for in the Rent Control petition is totally different and the issues for consideration are also different from the issues framed in O. S. No. 527 of 2001. In addition, it was contended that the Rent Controller is a persona designata and therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including S. 24, have no application and therefore, the present application is not maintainable under the said provisions. Hence sought for dismissal of the Transfer CMP.