SIKHAKOLLI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. GRANDHI PUNNARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a tenant of the building in Vijayawada belonging to the respondents, suffered a decree of eviction in a rent control case. The said order was confirmed in appeal - RCA No. 44/83 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the appellate order was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2960/92. While dismissing the C.R.P. on 25.9.1992, this Court granted four months' time for eviction. Thereafter, a suit was sought to be filed in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 44 of 1983 and by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2960 of 1992 is without jurisdiction and such decree cannot be enforced or executed. The petitioner also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree and thereby evicting the petitioner from the suit building. The proposed suit was not numbered by the Principal District Munsif and the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by an order dated 23.1.1993. Against that order, A.S. No. 9 of 1993 was filed in the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, by the petitioner. The appeal having been dismissed, the present C.R.P. is filed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents became entitled to the suit property as a result of partition but not as legal representatives of their late father and the respondents should have therefore, filed a separate application for eviction instead of continuing the eviction proceedings filed by their deceased father under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. It is submitted that the respondents ought not to have been added as legal representatives and no decree should have been passed as a result of allowing the L.R. petition. It is therefore contended that the entire proceeding culminating in the judgment of this Court in C.R.P. No. 2960 of 1992 are null and void and without jurisdiction. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 and Sunderdas v. Ram Prakash, 1977(2) RCR 143(SC) : 1977(2) SCC 662, it is submitted that the question of jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any stage and even at the stage of execution. Hence it is argued, that the plaint should not have been rejected on the ground that the decision in the earlier proceedings constitutes res judicata and that the question of jurisdiction should have been gone into after numbering the suit.

(3.) IT is true, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh's case (supra) that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its validity can be set up even at the stage of execution or any collateral proceedings. But when the plea of jurisdiction was specifically raised earlier and decided against the petitioner and the forums before which the plea was raised were competent to go into the jurisdictional facts as well, it is futile to contend that the petitioner-tenant could raise the very same plea in a different forum ignoring the finality of the order passed earlier by a competent Court deciding the very issue which had bearing on the jurisdiction. The suit is therefore misconceived and if allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of law.