Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1472 (AP)

A. YASHODA v. DIGAMBER RAO SURVE

2004-12-08

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2004
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisions are directed against the judgments rendered in r. a. nos. 129 of 2000 and 229 of 2000 by the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: eviction petition in r. c. no. 621 of 1998 was presented against the tenant by the landlord before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad. It is being contested by the tenant. The landlord has claimed that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and also sought for bona fide requirement of the premises. During the pendency of the petition, la. No. 500 of 1999 has been presented under Section 11 (1) of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the act ) to direct the tenant to pay or deposit arrears of rent from 16. 4. 1998 to 30. 9. 1999 at rs. 900/- and also future rents. Thereupon, the lower court marked the written statement of the defendant in o. s. no. 2020 of 1998 and allowed the application with a direction to deposit rs. 100/- per month being the admitted rent. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court at hyderabad. The appellate authority in r. a. no. 229 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Thereupon, the tenant has preferred c. r. p. no. 3975 of 2002 against r. a. no. 229 of 2000. In the meanwhile, the landlord has presented i. a. no. 136 of 2000 in i. a. no. 500 of 1999 in r. c. no. 621 of 1998 under Section 11 (4) of the act before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad to stop all further proceedings and deliver possession. Thereupon, the rent controller has directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the schedule premises within one month by stopping all further proceedings in r. c. no. 621 of 1998. The tenant once again carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad, in respect of the said orders passed in i. a. no. 136 of 2000. The appellate authority in r. a. no. 129 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. 621 of 1998. The tenant once again carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad, in respect of the said orders passed in i. a. no. 136 of 2000. The appellate authority in r. a. no. 129 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant once again preferred c. r. p. no. 3928 of 2002. Hence, these two revisions are being disposed of together by a common order. ( 3 ) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether the order directing the tenant to deposit the alleged admitted rent and also directing the, tenant to put the landlord in possession is in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the act. ( 4 ) IT is noticed by this court that no documentary evidence is produced. It is an admitted fact that the present landlord purchased the said premises subsequently. Before adverting to the contentions, it is necessary to have a look at provisions of Section 11 of the act, which reads as follows: ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner sri koka raghava rao mainly contends that the tenant was depositing the rents before the rent controller in earlier proceedings and there is no need to give a direction to deposit once again. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord contends that the deposit made in the prior proceedings does not amount to sufficient compliance and it amount to wilful default. In any view of the matter, that has to be adjudicated only in the main application. ( 6 ) THE only point that has to be considered is whether there is any dispute as to the rent to be paid or deposited and if so whether the court has determined summarily the rent to be so paid. The rent controller in his order passed in i. a. no. 500 of 1999 has stated as under:having observed that quantum of rent is in dispute, it went on to consider about the depositing of rent at the rate rs. 100/- per month. It is contemplated under Section 11 (3) of the act that the rent controller is bound to make enquiry and determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. 100/- per month. It is contemplated under Section 11 (3) of the act that the rent controller is bound to make enquiry and determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. If such enquiry is not conducted, it will not amount to sufficient compliance of the provision of Section 11 (3) of the act. It does not contemplate relegating the enquiry to the main application. Moreover, the court itself has observed that the quantum of rent is in dispute and there is no evidence to decide this point as such it can be decided during the enquiry in the main r. c. that means when evidence has not been placed to determine the quantum of rent, he ought to have dismissed the application rather than proceed to fix the rent without any basis. Moreover, the person who presented the application has not produced the sale deed. He is bound to produce his title deed and show that he is landlord. It is a case where the tenant has denied title of the landlord as well as attornment to the new landlord. He has also denied the quantum of rent. Without adjudicating all these things, it cannot be said that the tenant has to pay the said amount. Section 11 (3) of the act contemplates that rent has to be determined in a summary way. Both the rent controller as well as the appellate authority, which confirmed the order of the court below, has failed to follow the statutory provision under Section 11 (3) of the act. The ordering of deposit of admitted rent which amount sufficient compliance as mentioned in decisions reported in Ghouse Mohiuddin v. Dr. L. bhaskar Reddy, 1995 (2) Ald 108 = 1995 (2) Alt 73 , and M. Gopala Krishna v. N. G. Veerabhadra Swamy, 1994 (1) Alt 47 , will not apply to the facts of this case as there is no admitted rent here since the ownership of the landlord as well as the stipulation of the rent is denied. There cannot be any dispute that notice is not necessary before presenting the rent control application and it has been clearly Stated by the Apex Court in v. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, Air 1979 SC 1745 . There cannot be any dispute that notice is not necessary before presenting the rent control application and it has been clearly Stated by the Apex Court in v. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, Air 1979 SC 1745 . The relevant paras in 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 read as follows: ( 7 ) IT is also clearly stated in smt. Arnavaz Rustom Printer, Mumbai v. N. D. Thadani, 2001 (4) ALD 652 = 2001 (4) ALT 509 , that court has got jurisdiction to order eviction of tenant under sub Section (4) of Section 11 of the act, which is mandatory. It is also clearly Stated in Soorampally Venkata Reddy v. M/s. New Timmala Emporium, 2001 (5) ALD 311 = 2001 (4) ALT 604 , that the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 20 confirming the order of rent controller under Section 11 (4) is executable under Section 15 of the act. The matter has to be looked through a different angle in this case. The lower court has not looked into the provision of Section 11 (3) of the act and did not consider the determination of the rent. Ordering enquiry in the main r. c. , is beyond the scope of Section 11 (3) of the act. The order of the rent controller directing the tenant to deposit admitted rent and the consequential order to put the landlord in possession of the schedule premises are liable to be set aside and they are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is sent back to the rent controller to determine the rent in the application summarily as adumbrated under Section 11 (3) of the act and dispose of the case in accordance with law. It is also stated that the main r. c. , is of the year 1998. I am of the considered view that both main case as well as the applications is to be disposed of at one and the same time, which will meet the ends of justice. ( 8 ) IN the result, the learned ii additional rent controller, hyderabad is directed to dispose of i. a. no. 500 of 1999 and la. No. 136 of 2000 at one and the same time along with r. c. no. 621 of 1998. ( 8 ) IN the result, the learned ii additional rent controller, hyderabad is directed to dispose of i. a. no. 500 of 1999 and la. No. 136 of 2000 at one and the same time along with r. c. no. 621 of 1998. Before taking up the case, the rent controller is directed to make an effort to bring about settlement through lok adalat and soon after receipt of the record from lok adalat, he shall dispose of the same within a period of two months. Both revisions are allowed accordingly. No costs.