IQBAL BEGUM Vs. CHOTE MIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has come up for orders of this Court on the objection taken by the Registry as to the maintainability of the appeal filed against the orders of the learned single Judge in C.M.P.No. 11368 of 1999, dated 2-7-1999 setting aside the orders passed in C.R.P. No. 3230 of 1997, dated 12-11-1998 and restoring the revision petition to its file and directing the same to be listed for final hearing.

(2.) Before going into the maintainability of the appeal, it is necessary toset out a few facts leading to the filing of the appeal: The appellant herein who is the landlady of the schedule premises in question filed RCC.No. 227 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent - tenant herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The R.C.C. was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed in R.A.No. 562 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed C.R.P.No. 3230 of 1997. It appears that on 12-11-1998 when the revision petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, the learned Advocate representing the respondent- tenant had consented that the tenant would vacate the premises without demanding any amenities and accordingly the C.R.P. was disposed of granting six months time to vacate the premises and directing the respondent to file an undertaking to the effect that he would vacate the premises after the expirty of six months before the Rent Controller. It appears that as the tenant failed to file the undertaking as directed, C.C.No. 273 of 1999 was filed and in that a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent. The case of the respondent is that he had not consented for vacation of the premises and it is only through the show-cause notice in the contempt case, he came to know about the disposal of the revision petition with certain directions. Therefore, he filed C.M.P.No. 11368 of 1999 under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. requesting to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 12-11-1998 in the C.R.P. He also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. Subsequently, however, the delay condonation application was withdrawn by the respondent - tenant. A learned single Judge of this Court heard the matter in detail and by an elaborate order dated 2-7-1999 entertained the C.M.P.No. 11368 of 1999 treating the same as the one filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and set aside the order dated 12-11-1998 and restored the C.R.P. to its file and directed the same to be listed for final hearing before an appropriate Bench. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is filed. That is how the appellant has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) Sri Lakshmareddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the procedure followed by the learned single Judge in treating the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. as the one filed under Section 151 C.P.C. thus invoking the inherent powers of the Court is quite illegal and arbitrary. Secondly, the learned Judge erred in not noticing that the matter had already been disposed of on merits and the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. was not maintainable. Thirdly, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained the application just a few days before the expiry of the time limit that was granted by this Court for vacating the premises. Lastly, it was contended that the order dated 2-7-1999 passed by the learned single Judge is in the nature of a Judgment and, therefore, an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable. "He, therefore, sought for overruling of the objection taken by the Registry as to the maintainability of the appeal and to hear the appeal on merits.