G MANIKYAMMA Vs. T SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the question of applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings under the Andhm Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act'), Raghuvir, J. noticed that there are conflicting decisions, and therefore he hasrefsrred this civil revision petition to a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts that give rise to the question may briefly be stated. The petitioner, Gunda Manikyamma, hereinafter referred to as "the landlady", filled R.C.C. 1 of 1979 for eviction of the tenant, viz., the 1st respondent, on the ground of wilful default and on other grounds. Pending R. C.C. No. 1 of 1979, the 2nd respondent herein, who is no other than the brother of the petitioner, filed I. A. No. 653 of 1979 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and under Section 151 CPC for impleading him as 2nd respondent in the R.C.C. He claimed that his sister, who claims to be the owner of the property, is basing her title on an alleged will said to have been executed by her father, but that will is a forged one and fabricated by the petitioner. He also made certain other allegations which may not be necessary for us to refer in this revision petition. He however ultimately claimed that he is a necessary party and therefore he should be impleaded. This was contested by the petitioner herein. The lower Court however allowed I.A. No. 653 of 1979 and the 2nd respondent herein was brought on record as a respondent along with the tenant. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. After the death of the petitioner, her legal representatives are brought on record.

(3.) It was contended before the lower Court also, that the provisions CPC are inapplicable to the proceedings initiated under the Rent Control Act. But that plea was negatived. In Lingayya vs. Lakshminarsammal a learned single Judge of this Court observed that the proviso to Section 10 of the Rent Control Act does not contemplate of third parties coming into the picture for adjudication of their rights de hors the matters arising for decision by the Rent Controller. The learned Judge referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in Abdul Khadir Hadjiar vs. A.K. Murthy and held that the position seems clear that the CPC is not made applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller. He also relied on Peyyetti Jagannadha Rao vs. Pamarati Venkateswara Rao and held that the Rent Controller is not a Court, in Kadimcharla Sobhanadri vs. Manga Ramadas Seetharam Reddy J. held thus :