← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/5512/2016allowed no costs

B.N. Pandu Ranga Vittal v. S. Krishna

2017-03-03Sanjay Kumar3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5512 OF 2016

O R D E R

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, in I.A.No.399 of 2016 in R.C.No.12 of 2015. R.C.No.12 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property under Sections 10(2)(i) and 3(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petition schedule details the property as the house bearing No.5-8/30, Plot No.30, Survey No.38, admeasuring 300 square yards, situated at Old Alwal, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad. While so, the respondent herein, being the petitioner in R.C.No.12 of 2015, filed I.A.No.399 of 2016 therein under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the house number as No.1-5-494 instead of No.5-8/30 .

By the order under revision, the Court below permitted the same. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent in R.C.No.12 of 2015 is before this Court. Heard Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent. The respondent/petitioner entered appearance through Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel. However, no counter-affidavit was filed and the learned counsel was not present when this case was taken up for hearing on 17.02.2017. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 23.02.2017. Today, when the matter was called during the pre-lunch session, Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel was again not present and the matter was passed over, but the learned counsel failed to appear even during the post-lunch session. The matter was thereupon reserved for orders.

Perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent/petitioner in support of I.A.No.399 of 2016 reflects that he stated that due to a typographical error, the premises was shown as house No.5-8/30 in the place of house No.1-5-494. He therefore prayed that leave may be granted to him to amend the house number.

Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel, reiterating the contents of the counter filed by the petitioner/respondent before the Court below, pointed out that R.C.No.12 of 2015 was filed by one S.Sudhakar Reddy, the GPA of the respondent herein, on the strength of the Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 26.06.2015, whereby S.Sudhakar Reddy was given the authority to deal with the house property bearing No.5-8/30 situated in Old Alwal, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The learned counsel would therefore contend that when the case was based upon this Deed of General Power of Attorney, which specifically and only spoke of house No.5-8/30, it was not open to the respondent/petitioner to amend the said house number, whereby the very institution of the case by his GPA on the strength of the said document would take on a different hue.

This Court finds merit in this submission. R.C.No.12 of 2015 was filed by the respondent through his General Power of Attorney, S.Sudhakar Reddy. The Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 26.06.2015 executed by the respondent in favour of S.Sudhakar Reddy was filed along with the petition. Thereunder, S.Sudhakar Reddy, the GPA, had authority only to deal with the specified house property bearing No.5-8/30. That apart, this Court finds it difficult to accept that there could be any 'typographical' error whereby house No.1-5-494 could have been wrongly shown as house No.5-8/30. The Court below seems to have completely overlooked the aforestated

aspects and shown lenience to the respondent/petitioner. On grounds more than one, this Court finds that the Court below erred in allowing the subject I.A.

The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, in I.A.No.399 of 2016 in R.C.No.12 of 2015. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 3rd MARCH, 2017 Svv