BINODLAL SAGARMAL HYDERABAD Vs. PREM PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is a firm and petitioners 2 and 3 are its partners. They are tenants of mulgi bearing No. 1-2-174, Charkaman, Hyderabad, owned by the respondents. In 1985, the second petitioner along with two others filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by one Madanlal Gupta in respect of mulgies bearing No.21-2-172, 173 and 174, Charkaman, Hyderabad. The second petitioner along with one Devakinandam filed O.S. No.2587 of 1985 (later numbered as O.S. No.307 of 1993) on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 1 and 2 for perpetual injunction restraining them from changing the nature of the suit schedule premises. The Trial Court, by a common judgment dated 16-2-1994 decreed both the suits in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree respondents and others filed first appeals before this Court being C.C.C.A. Nos.39, 41, 194, 47 of 1994 and 49 of 1997.

(2.) While the suits were pending, respondents filed R.C. No.812 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioners on ground of wilful default. In the rent control case, the evidence of landlord was completed and was coming for evidence of respondents. This Court allowed the first appeals filed by the landlord being C.C.C.A. Nos.39, 41, 194, 47 of 1994 and 49 of 1997 by judgment dated 16-3-2002. The petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeals being LPA Nos.151, 173 and 176 of 2002 and are coming for admission before a Division Bench of this Court. At that stage, the petitioners filed LA. No.397 of 2002 contending that while the first appeals before the High Court were pending, at the request of the respondents, the High Court stayed the rent control proceedings and, therefore, during the pendency of LPAs, rent control case should be stayed. The learned I Additional Rent Controller, by an order dated 21-10-2002 dismissed IA.No.397 of 2002 holding that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is not applicable to the Rent Controller in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Amrutlal v. Principal Rent Controller, 1978 (2) ALT 102. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant petitioner filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Be it noted, the petitioners initially filed revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter called 'the Rent Act') against the order of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C. No.812 of 1997. Initially, an interim order was granted staying and Rent Control case. Subsequently this Court by an order dated 14-2-2003 while vacating the interim order gave liberty to the petitioner to convert the petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution.