Kotha Srinivasa Rao Vs. Ganta Nagaratnam and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........decision of this court in vaggu agamaiah and ors. v. south central railway., : 2002(2)ald388 , and a contention was p advanced that :'inasmuch as order 1, rule 10 of code of civil procedure is not applicable at the stage of execution, impleading a party at that stage is definitely bad in law.'5. there cannot be any controversy about this proposition of law. the learned counsel for the first respondent also had placed strong reliance to the decision of supreme court in prasanta banerji v. pushpa ashoke chandani and ors., : (2002)9scc554 . with all emphasis, the learned counsel contended that in view of the very suit filed by the revision petitioner, application to implead proposed party is not maintainable. it is pertinent to note that it is not the question involved in the present civil revision petition.6. the question whether the stand taken by the revision petitioner relating to independent tenancy or that he being the member of the joint family is bound by the decree and the decree can be executed on that ground is a question to be decided at the appropriate stage in accordance with the procedure specified under rule 23 of the rent control rules.7. as far as the present.....

Judgment:

ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, the Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, the Counsel representing the first respondent.

2. The petitioner herein and the second respondent are brothers. The present revision petitioner had taken a stand that he is an independent tenant, claiming tenancy rights under the landlady. The stand taken by him is that his brother was the prior tenant. The stand taken by the landlady is that the revision petitioner is just a member of the self same family.

3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram by virtue of the impugned order had impleaded the revision petitioner also as a party, observing that the points raised relating to fresh lease can be decided in the E.P.

4. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Vaggu Agamaiah and Ors. v. South Central Railway., : 2002(2)ALD388 , and a contention was P advanced that :

'Inasmuch as Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable at the stage of execution, impleading a party at that stage is definitely bad in law.'

5. There cannot be any controversy about this proposition of law. The learned Counsel for the first respondent also had placed strong reliance to the decision of Supreme Court in Prasanta Banerji v. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani and Ors., : (2002)9SCC554 . With all emphasis, the learned Counsel contended that in view of the very suit filed by the revision petitioner, application to implead proposed party is not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that it is not the question involved in the present civil revision petition.

6. The question whether the stand taken by the revision petitioner relating to independent tenancy or that he being the member of the joint family is bound by the decree and the decree can be executed on that ground is a question to be decided at the appropriate stage in accordance with the procedure specified under Rule 23 of the Rent Control Rules.

7. As far as the present impugned order is concerned, I am satisfied that the revision petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party, but it is made clear that all the questions raised by the first respondent-decree holder in this regard are left open and liberty is given to her to agitate these questions at the appropriate stage.

8. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.