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

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderp.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.....

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.