ENGLESH PRASAD Vs. N SHRAVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant, aggrieved by the reversing order made in R.A. No.401/99 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C.R.P. The respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.No.798/95 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, being unsuccessful before the Court of First Instance, the landlord preferred R.A.No.401/ 99, as aforesaid, which was allowed. As against the same, the tenant filed the present C.R.P.

(2.) C.R.P.M.P. No.4808/2005 is moved before this Court to implead petitioners 2 to 5 as respondents 2 to 5 in the C.R.P. and pass such other suitable orders. The said application is opposed on the ground that since the learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, the same had attained finality so far as the proposed parties are concerned, since they were not brought on record and since they had not preferred any appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that I.A.No.461/97 was filed to implead them in the eviction case, being co-owners of the property and the same was ordered by order dated 24-9-1997. But, however, due to clerical or typographical mistakes, their names were not shown in the cause title in the order dated 23-6-1999 passed in R.C.No.798/95 and the same omission was carried as it is even in R.A.No.401/99 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and hence, in the interest of justice, the same could be rectified. It is pertinent to note that the landlord is grandson of the original owner in the light of the definition of the 'landlord' under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act'), a person receiving rents also may fall under the definition of 'landlord'. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the others are the family members of the landlord and they had been brought on record just to rectify the defect. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that C.R.P.M.P. No.4808/2005 to be allowed and accordingly the same is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.

(3.) Sri Vilas Afzul V. Purkar, the learned Counsel representing the tenant had pointed out that there is some discrepancy in the title deeds and the name of the grandmother is not tallying and hence, the Court of First Instance is well justified in driving the party to a Competent Civil Court. The learned Counsel also would contend that the Appellate Authority, without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, allowed the appeal and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and also would comment that the order of the Appellate Authority is the cryptic order and just basing on oral evidence, findings had been recorded relating to the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant and the same cannot be sustained.