THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8001 of 2007 Dated 27th June, 2011 Between: Naladi Dasu …Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, rep.byy its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri T.Ramesh Babu for Smt.G.Jhansi Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Satish for Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Y.Srinivasan for Sri K.Chidambaram The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in effecting change of ownership in the records relating to house bearing No.37-3-19/B of Kondaiah Street, Badavapeta, Vijayawada as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to declare that he is the owner of the said house. I have heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel, representing Smt.G.Jhansi; learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri Satish, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri V.Srinivasan, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel respondent No.5. The dispute pertains to the ownership over the above- mentioned house between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.5 on the other. It is not in dispute that the property tax was received from the petitioner from 1993 to 30.09.2006 as reflected from paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1. However, on the basis of the purported unregistered sale deed, dated 18.03.1992, in favour of the father of respondent No.5, the assessment was transferred in favour of respondent No.5 vide proceedings No.TPET-1253/C3/06, dated 16.11.2006. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.18 of 1996 (Old R.C.C.No.215 of 1988), dated 21.11.1996. The said rent control case was filed by the father of respondent No.5 against the petitioner for the latter’s eviction from the premises in question. In para-15 of the order, the Rent Controller held as under: “In the said circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that the premises in occupation of the respondent belongs to him and that he let out the same to respondent on lease. Hence, the evidence of the petitioner is not to the satisfaction of the court, as such this court has no choice but to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is occupying the premises belonging to him as a tenant and that she is liable to be evicted as a result of the default committed by her.” On the strength of the above finding, the Rent Controller has dismissed the application of the father of respondent No.5 for eviction of the petitioner. It is pleaded by the petitioner and not disputed by respondent No.5 that the said order was confirmed in appeal, thereby the finding of the Rent Controller had become final. In the stand taken by the respondents, I find a serious fallacy, namely, that respondent No.5 was recognised as owner on the basis of the unregistered sale deed standing in the name of her father. In addition to the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 evidently ignored the above re-produced finding of the Rent Controller. In the light of these facts, proceedings No.TPET-1253/C3/06, dated 16.11.2006, cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, they are set aside with the direction to respondent No.2 to re-consider the respective claims of the parties in the light of the material discussed above, pass a fresh order and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent No.5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10281 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th June, 2011 VGB