IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P.No.4484 of 2010 DATE:15.12.2010 Between: M/s.Sri Sai Syndicate …… Petitioner And The Hyderabad Cut Piece Cloth Merchants Association and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P.No.4484 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the 2nd respondent before the Rent Controller questioning order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the 4th Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I.A. No.439 of 2010 in R.C.No.350 of 2005 dismissing the petition filed under Section 10/151 C.P.C refusing to stay R.C.350 of 2005 till disposal of suit O.S. No.481 of 2005 pending before V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2) The 1st respondent herein filed R.C. No.350 of 2005 against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner for eviction under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. According to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent is their tenant and the 2nd respondent sub-let the schedule mulgi to the petitioner unauthorisedly. The 1st respondent also is pleading wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Control Case has been pending since the year 2005. While so, the 2nd respondent also filed O.S. No.481 of 2005 against the petitioner for his eviction from the schedule premisis on the ground that the petitioner is her tenant on monthly rent of Rs.21,000/- etc., The 1st respondent/land lord is not a party to O.S. No.481 of 2005. Case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner is sub-tenant under the 2nd respondent is substantiated by the fact that the 2nd respondent filed the suit O.S. No.481 of 2005 against the petitioner for eviction. In case, the petitioner is sub tenant in the schedule premisis, the 2nd respondent becomes his landlady for whom the 1st respondent is the landlord. There is no inconsistency between R.C. No.350 of 2005 and O.S. No.481 of 2005 on this aspect. 3) It is contended by the petitioner that he is not a sub-tenant of the 1st respondent and is not tenant of the 2nd respondent but is a partner of the 2nd respondent and that when he offered to pay rents to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent refused to receive rents from him. Whether the petitioner is a sub-tenant under the 2nd respondent or whether the petitioner is a partner of the 2nd respondent who is admittedly the tenant in the schedule premisis under the 1st respondent, it has no bearing on maintainability of R.C. No.350 of 2005. The Rent Controller has got jurisdiction to decide the jurisdictional facts viz., whether the 2nd respondent is tenant of the 1st respondent and whether the petitioner is sub-tenant of the 1st respondent in respect of the schedule premises. If the said jurisdictional point is decided by the Rent Controller, then it is binding on all the parties and also it would serve as a piece of evidence in O.S. No.481 of 2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Civil Court alone has got jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner is a partner of the 2nd respondent or whether the petitioner is a sub tenant of the 1st respondent in the schedule premisis. After waiting 5 long years, the petitioner came up with the present petition before the Rent Controller, obviously to prolong eviction proceedings. 4) In Amrutlal V. The Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad[1], Division Bench of this Court held that Section 10 C.P.C cannot be availed by the Rent Controller to stay the proceedings before him. This was also followed subsequent decision of this Court in Kesuri Venkata Subba Rao V. Kota Sarojini[2]. In that view of the matter, Vishnu Das V. Dr.Krishna Kumar[3], Soni Vrajlal Jethalal V. Soni Jadavji Govindji[4], Oil and Natural Gas Commission V. Ganesh Prasad Singh[5] and Subho Ram Kalita V. Dharmeswar Dash Koch[6] have no application herein. This is not a case where civil suit for recovery of rents is sought to be stayed pending fixation of fair rent proceedings. Therefore, decision of the Supreme Court in P.V.Shetty V. B.S.Giridhar[7] also has no application herein. 5) The Rent Controller after considering the entire facts and legal position came to right conclusion refusing to stay the Rent Control Case. 6) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 15, 2010 ksh [1] 1978(2) A.L.T 102 [2] 1993(2) RCJ 408 [3] AIR 1953 Hyderabad 144 [4] AIR 1972 Gujarat 144 [5] AIR 1983 Gauhati 8 [6] AIR 1987 Gauhati 73 [7] AIR 1982 Supreme Court 83