AMRUTLAL Vs. PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions raise common questions of law and, therefore, they have been directed to be heard together.

(2.) The facs giving rise to the writ appeals and petitions may be stated: It would suffice if we state the facts leading to the filing of Writ Appeal No. 367 of 1976. The appellant is a tenant of a building in Hashmat Gunj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent (landlord) had filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellant on several grounds. The landlord and purchased the premises in question on 25-9-1970 and informed the appellant on 20-10-1970 of the same and asked him to vacate the premises. The tenant relied pon and agreement of lease for a period of 20 years in his favour by the previous landlord and contended that he is not liable to vacate the premises. The tenant also- had filed a suit. C.S. No. 256 of 1971 in the court of the IV Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and prayed for specific performance of the agreement of release in his favour. The eviction petition was filed on 17-2-1971 and the suit by the tenant was filed on 4-5-1971. The tenant filed an application under section 10 C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings before the Rent Controller until the final disposal of the suit filed by him. Following decision ot this court in M. Subbaramayya vs. B.N. Swamy. the Rent Controller dismissed that application. That led to the tenant unsuccessfully filing an appeal before the Chief Judge agreed with the Rent Controller that the proceedings in the court of the rent controller cannot be stayed on the ground that a suit is pending in a civil court. The tenant therefore filed the petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Our learned brother, Raghuvir, J., following a decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in Harikishan Singh vs. B Narayana. held that the proceedings before the Rent Controller are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. However relying upon the view expressed by a single Judge, Sriramulu J., in Subbaramayya vs. B.N. Swamy. the learned judge held that section 10 C.P.C. cannot be invoked by the tenant seeking stay of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He also negatived the contention that the Rent Controller could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 151 CPC. Hence the writ appeals.

(3.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are tenants. They also resisted the applications filed for their eviction by the landlord on the ground that the landlord is not entitled to seek their eviction when there was permanent tenancy in their favour. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2764 of 1976 has filed a suit earlier in the court of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for enforcement of the agreement regarding tenancy in his favour.