KILAMBI VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. M.V. SEETHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs respectively in O.S. No. 181 of 1990 and the respondents 1 to 5 are the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners' case is that a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property was filed by the petitioners. The 1st respondent filed R.C.C. No. 33/87 against the 4th respondent. Another suit was filed for eviction from a portion of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner No. 1 filed I.A. No. 901/91 in the above suit for stay of the trial of R.C.C. No. 33/87 which was disposed of on the basis of the 4th respondent's evidence in R.C.A. No. 9/1991. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali (for short 'the trial Court') dismissed I.A. No. 901/91 on 20.12.95 on the ground that RCC. No. 33/87 was disposed of on a statement made by the Advocate of the 4th respondent that the High Court was seized of the matter in R.C.A.No.9/91. Further, according to the petitioners, I.A.No. 901/91 related to the proceedings in R.C.A. No.33/87. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the 1st petitioner was pending in the High Court and the orders passed therein were only ex parte and the respondents therein has not appeared in the said proceedings. The petitioners were advised to file an application in the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tenali, for staying of further proceedings in R.C.A. No. 9/91 pending disposal of the above suit as it was a comprehensive suit in which the title of the suit schedule property was to be decided. Therefore, according to the petitioners if the RCA No. 9/91 was disposed of in favour of the 1st respondent, prior to the disposal of the suit, he would withdraw the amount deposited in the Cout by the 4th respondent in R.C.C. No. 33/87 and RCA. No. 9/91 and it would not be possible for the petitioners to recover the same from the 1st respondent if eventually she succeeds in the suit. On these grounds the petitioners prayed that the proceedings in R.C.A. No.9/91 should be stayed pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) THIS Court while dealing with C.M.P. No.13559 of 1996 in C.R.P. No.3439 of 1996 filed by the petitioners herein praying the High Court to issue an order of staying all further proceedings in R.C.A. No.9 of 1991 on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Tenali, passed the following orders :-

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Soni v. K. Nageshwar Rao, 1991(3) ALT 299, wherein it was held that 'Where a disputed question of title is raised or has to be decided at the instance of the third party, the scheme of the Act does not permit his impleading in Rent Control proceedings'. It is further observed that the Rent Control Act is a special Act by which a statutory protection is granted to a tenant and, at the same time, the landlord is intended to have a speedier remedy than in a regular suit. It is not the intention of the Legislature that complicated questions of title are to be adjudicated by the Rent Controller. The proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit before a civil Court for deciding the dispute as to title raised by him and obtain appropriate relief.'