K V SUBBA RAO Vs. K SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant in R.C.C.No. 19/87 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tenali questiioning the order made in I.A.No. 1682/91 filed by him under Section 10 CP.C. for stay of proceedings in the said R.C.C. pending disposal of O.S.No. 124/88 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali filed by him for specific performance of a contract for sale dated 8-8-1985.

(2.) The respondents filed R.C.C.No. 19/87 under Sections 10(2) (i) (vi), 3(i) (b) and 3 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that Kota Kasiviswanadham, husband of the first respondent, purchased the premises in quesiton from Alapati Mallikharjuna Rao, A. Janakamma A. Ramachandrarao and P. Lakshmirajyam and though they wanted the premises for their personal occupation the petitioner did not vacate the same and hence, they were constrained to file the said petition for eviction.

(3.) The petitioner is contesting the said petition. He has also deposited the rents in pursuance of an order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 11 (4) of the Act and is continuing to deposit. While so, the petitioner has also filed O.S.No. 124/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali against the respondents herein, who are the alleged owners (whose names are stated above) and against some others viz., Sanka Venkateswarlu, A. Venkayyarya Vemuri Subbarao and Kommuru Ullaki for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into between himself and the owners and the said suit is pending. The petitioner, now filed an application in I.A.No, 1618 of 1991 in R.C.C.No. 19/87 for stay of trial of the said R.C.C. pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No. 124/88, alleging that the respondents have no valid title to the sch'edule property and as the question of title is in dispute in view of the oral contract of sale dated 8-8-1985 in his favour and as he filed the suit for specific performance, the trial of R.C.C. should be stayed. I may observe that this petition does not even contain the grounds for stay, except stating that as the title to the property is in dispute, stay of trial of R.C.C: should be granted, pending disposal of the suit. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the said application relying on a decision reported in M. Subbaramayya vs. Narasimha Swamy (1) 1972 (1) An:W.R. 105, that the Rent Controller is not a Court and the proceeding before him is not a suit so as to attract the application of Section 10 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision petition is filed.