IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6155 OF 2010 Between: M. Sarwar … Petitioner-Appellant Respondent No.2 V/s. Mohammed Muneeruddin & 9-Ors. … Respondents- Respondents 9 & 10 proposed parties Counsel for the Revision Petitioners : Sri A. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D. Madhava Rao The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6155 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-11-2010 passed in RA.No. 161 of 2010 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order and decree dated 07-4-2010 passed in IA.No. 354 of 2009 in RC.No. 129 of 2008 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 9 and 10, who are proposed parties. 3. Pending RC.No. 129 of 2008, the proposed parties filed IA.No. 354 of 2009 seeking their impleadment on the ground that they purchased the schedule mentioned property from the original petitioner in the R.C. vide document No. 1232 of 2008. Their claim is that they became the owner of the property and there cannot be effective adjudication in the matter without their presence. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 07-4-2010 permitted the impleadment of the respondents 9 and 10, who are the proposed parties. Against the said order, the second respondent preferred R.A.No. 161 of 2010 and by judgment dated 20-11-2010the learned Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act, affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller permitting their impleadment. 4. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that if the property does not actually belong to the original petitioner in the RC, the said question can be decided by the Rent Controller only after adducing evidence by both the parties. 5. Now the point for consideration is : “Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act ?” 6. The learned Appellate Authority rightly held that respondents 9 and 10 produced the registered sale deed claiming that they purchased the schedule mentioned property from the original owner in the R.C. and therefore, they have acquired interest in the Rent Control Proceedings which are pending. Since the original petitioner in the Rent Control Case sold the property to the Respondents 9 and 10, without the presence of the proposed parties (Respondents 9 and 10) there cannot be any complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. Further no prejudice will be caused to the Revision Petitioner if the respondents 9 and 10 are impleaded in the Rent Control Proceedings. I find no error committed by both the courts below in allowing the implead petition. I absolutely therefore see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 04-0-7-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6155 OF 2010 Circulation No.15 Date:04-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43