SYED YADULLAH Vs. MALEKA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is respondent in the Rent Control case - R.C. No. 831 of 1992 - on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. That R.C. was filed against the respondent for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the original allottee of the building entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1963 with the petitioner, that the petitioner was paying the instalments due to the Labour Department and has been in occupation of the building and that after the death of the original allottee by name Syed Omar, his wife sold away the building to the respondent herein without lawful authority. Thus, the petitioner is denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The contention of the respondent who filed the eviction petition is that the allotment in favour of Syed Omar was cancelled in view of the default in the payment of dues to the Labour Department and it was re-allotted to the wife of the original allottee during his life time itself. It is therefore contended that the wife of Syed Omar had title to the building and it was validly conveyed to the petitioner.

(2.) Pending the eviction petition, the petitioner herein filed an I.A. purportedly under Sec. 10 C.P.C. to stay the proceedings in R.C.No. 831 of 1992 till the disposal of the suit for specific performance - O.S.No. 4481 of 1992 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court filed by the petitioner herein. The ground on which the LA. is filed is that the dispute as to title is pending adjudication in the Civil Court and as the Rent Controller cannot decide the question of title, it is only proper that the Rent Control proceedings shall be stayed till the disposal of the suit. The learned Rent Controller by a cryptic order rejected the petition as not maintainable on the ground that Sec.10 C.P.C. is not applicable to rent control matters. It is against this order, the present C.R.P. is filed.

(3.) Assuming for a moment that the question of title is involved in the suit for specific performance, I do not think the Rent Control Court is powerless to decide the questions, whether the denial of jural relationship is bona fide or not, and whether by virtue of alleged agreement of sale, the obligation to pay rents gets extinguished and whether there was wilful default. Those questions can be legitimately gone into by the Rent Controller in exercise of his jurisdiction, if need be. I do not want to go into the larger questions whether the denial of jural relationship or title of the respondent is bona fide and whether the petitioner is justified in not paying the rent for the building. The limited point is whether the Rent Controler had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or committed any illegality in not staying the rent control case before him. Though the petition is dismissed as not maintainable, the ultimate order rejecting the application is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as it is well within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide the objections raised by the petitioner as to whether by virtue of the alleged dispute as to title non-payment of rent is justified.