JANATHA SHOE MART Vs. THOTA SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 04.04.2007, in R.C.A.No.4 of 2005, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, whereby he has confirmed the order, dated 03.10.2005, in I.A.No.1159 of 2004 in R.C.C.No.17 of 2000, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tenali. The petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises. One Palempati Sithamma was the landlady, who filed R.C.C.No.17 of 2000 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. During the pendency of the RCC, the landlady died. One Thota Satish (respondent No.1 herein) filed I.A.No.1159 of 2004 to permit him to come on record in place of the deceased landlady. The said application was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller by order, dated 03.10.2005, allowed the said application. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali by his order, dated 04.04.2007. Questioning both these orders, the present civil revision petition is filed. In support of his application to permit him to come on record, respondent No.1 pleaded that the landlady during her life time executed Will, dated 06.07.2003, wherein she has bequeathed the demised property in favour of one Palempati Sambaiah and appointed him as the executor of the said Will. He was also authorised to pursue R.C.C.No.17 of 2000 in case the landlady dies and to file necessary papers in the pending case and also authorised to receive the mesne profits. The landlady died on 09.06.2004. Contrarily, the petitioner has pleaded that the Will appears to be a fabricated one and in any event, respondent No.1 being only an executor, cannot come on record without the legatee getting himself impleaded in the case in the place of the deceased landlady.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller, while allowing the application relied upon the definition 'landlord' in Section 2(vi) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and held that even an executor also falls within the said definition. The learned Rent Controller also held that the petitioner being only a tenant is not entitled to raise an objection as to the validity or otherwise of the Will. The lower appellate Court endorsed the view of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THIS is the typical example of one such case where the petitioner successfully invoked its remedy at all three stages by filing IA, appeal against order passed in the IA and a revision before this Court. It will not be a surprise if the petitioner approaches the Apex Court against the present order. While a litigant is entitled to avail his legal remedies for bona fide purposes, he cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the law and Courts. Such practice if not curbed will derail the judicial system and erode people's faith in the rule of law. These very litigants when occasion arises cry hoarse from the roof-tops criticising the judicial system in the country for long pendency and inordinate delays in disposal of the cases. Indubitably, the litigant public and the Bar are equal stakeholders along with the Bench in dispensation of justice. They should realise that unless they extend their whole hearted cooperation to the Bench in its endeavour for quick disposal of cases by avoiding resorting to filing frivolous petitions with the sole intention of dragging on the litigation, it will be well-nigh impossible for the Courts to reduce pendency and provide speedy justice to the litigant public. As noted above, the objections were raised only to prolong the litigation and to derive undue advantage of pendency of the case. The objections raised by the petitioner utterly lack bona fides. By filing the present civil revision petition, the petitioner is able to succeed in keeping the eviction petition pending for nearly eight years.