Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1172 (AP)

Amir Ali v. Maneck

2005-12-12

ELIPE DHARMA RAO

body2005
( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of the common judgment dated 3-9-2002, passed in RA Nos. 191, 194 and 192 of 1999 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City small Cause Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the common order dated 9-4-1999 in IA No. 6 of 1998 in RC No. 193 of 1997; ia No. 8 of 1998 in RC No. 193 of 1997 and dismissal of RC No. 193 of 1998, by the learned Additional Rent Controller, secunderabad, the tenants preferred this civil revision petition. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix in a narrow compass is that the petitioners herein filed rc No. 193 of 1997 before the learned additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 8 (5) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity the Act) seeking permission to deposit rents for the period from March, 1997 onwards in respect of the premises bearing no. 134, present Municipal No. 1-6-49, Ground floor, situated at Park Lane, Mahatma gandhi Road, Opposite Gandhi Statue, secunderabad, which was obtained on lease in terms of registered lease deed dated 30-5-1977. Under the said lease, the initial lease period was nine years, after expiry of which, the petitioners, had three options for extension of lease. As per the terms of lease, 10% enhancement is applicable viz. , after completion of first nine years period, the mpnthly rent that was initially at rs. 600/- for three months and at Rs. 750/- thereafter, shall be Rs. 825/- per month from 1-5-1986 to 30-4-1995. Similarly, the monthly rent shall be at Rs. 907. 50 Ps. For the period from 1-5-1995 to 304-2004 and at rs. 997. 50 Ps. from 1-5-2004 to 30-4-2013. It is further stated that after expiry of first nine years, the respondents have been receiving rents at Rs. 825/- and thus acted upon the terms. While so, the respondents - landlords filed RC No. 207 of 1991 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, bona fide personal requirement, securing alternate accommodation, which is pending. Since the landlords evaded to receive the rents, the petitioners herein filed RC No. 270 of 1991 before the learned Principal Rent Controller, secunderabad, under Section 8 (5) of the act seeking to deposit the rents from november, 1991 onwards at the rate of rs. Since the landlords evaded to receive the rents, the petitioners herein filed RC No. 270 of 1991 before the learned Principal Rent Controller, secunderabad, under Section 8 (5) of the act seeking to deposit the rents from november, 1991 onwards at the rate of rs. 825/- per month, which was dismissed on 22-8-1996, on the premise that the notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act was not issued to the respondents - landlords calling upon them to furnish Bank Account particulars. However, on filing the rent petitions, the rents were being deposited for some time and on 5-5-1992, an order to pay the rents to the respondents directly came to be passed. Subsequently, when the landlord evaded receiving rents, the petitioners filed RC No. 193 of 1997 under Section 8 (5) of the Act from March, 1997 at Rs. 907. 50 Ps. , as second option under the lease deed has come into operation by that time. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the landlords - respondents that in view of dismissal of RC no. 270 of 1991 earlier, RC No. 193 of 1997 is not maintainable, as it operates as res judicata. They also filed IA Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1998 to dismiss RC No. 193 of 1997, as there is no cause of action; to dismiss the deposit of rent petitions and to hold that the order in RC No. 270 of 1991 operates as res judicata, respectively. The learned rent Controller, while dismissing IA No. 7 of 1998 allowed IA Nos. 6 and 8 of 1998 and consequently, dismissed the RC No. 193 of 1997. Aggrieved of which the tenants preferred appeals being RA Nos. 191, 192, and 184 of 1999, respectively and the lower appellate Court, by the impugned common judgment, dismissed all the three appeals, confirming the order of the learned Rent controller. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED of the same, the present revision petitions are filed by the tenants inter alia contending that the dismissal of rc No. 270 of 1991 filed under Section 8 (5) of the Act was on a technical ground of not issuing notice under Section 8 (3) and, therefore, it does not operate as res judicata, for different default period, when there is recurring cause of action for initiation of proceedings. It is further contended that even if the suits filed by the petitioners herein against the respondents for specific performance of the agreement for execution of the lease for extended optional periods are dismissed by the Courts below, the matters are still pending in this Court in cma Nos. 2748 and 2749 of 1999 and CRP nos. 5152 and 5153 of 1998, that the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that after expiry of period mentioned in the original lease deed, there is no renewal of the lease and by filing RC No. 193 of 1997, the petitioners are trying to create fresh tenancy, that the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no contract for enhancement of the rents, and therefore, prayed to allow the revision petitions. ( 5 ) THE petitioners - tenants filed OS no. 1027 of 1991 seeking to declare them as permanent tenants with effect from may, 1986 to May, 1995, which was dismissed on 15-9-1998. There is nothing on record which suggests that there was any fresh contract between the respondents and the petitioners herein for enhancement of rent. There is also nothing on record to say that the landlords - respondents have ever refused to receive the rents. The Memos along with rent receipts filed before the courts below make it abundantly clear that the rents were received without prejudice to the rights of the landlords. Thus it is for the petitioners to prove that there was cause of action for filing RC No. 193 of 1997. When it is the case of the petitioners that cause of action arose in June, 1995, the prayer to permit them to deposit enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 907. 50 Ps. the rents into the Court from March, 1997, does not hold water. That apart, the order of the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, in LA. No. 140 of 1996 in RC No. 270 of 1991, which was filed seeking permission to permit the tenants to deposit rents into the court was dismissed on 20-8-1996. Therefore, when once the plea of depositing the enhanced rent was dealt with on merits and dismissed, there does not lie cause of action to the petitioners to file a second petition, for the same relief. Therefore, when once the plea of depositing the enhanced rent was dealt with on merits and dismissed, there does not lie cause of action to the petitioners to file a second petition, for the same relief. The lower appellate court has exhaustively dealt with this issue in Paragraph 7 of its judgment I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference on this score. In the above premise, the jural relationship between the petitioners and the landlords is ceased to exist and the tenants are holding over the property. ( 6 ) THE observation of the lower appellate Court that the respondents are justified in refusing to receive the money order, as it was sent by Mr. Amir and mehdi Mohammad inasmuch as Mr. Mehdi mohammad has not signed the rental agreement, is based on appreciation of evidence in correct perspective. It goes without saying that if the respondents - landlords receive the said money order, it will fructify the design of the tenants to create tenancy between the landlords and mehdi Mohammad. In such circumstances, dismissal of OS Nos. 1027 of 1991 and 802 of 1995 on 15-9-1998 which were filed by the petitioners herein to declare them as tenants for the period from May, 1986 to may, 1995 and from June, 1995 to May, 2004, further the plea of the landlords that the jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondents is ceased to exist and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents herein that to overcome the same, the petitioners - tenants have filed RC No. 193 of 1997 so as to create a new tenancy is well merited. ( 7 ) AS observed earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the landlords have refused to receive the rents. In such circumstances, issuance of notice under section 8 (3) of the Act becomes all the more necessary. Had the tenants - petitioners herein issued such an notice, certainly, the landlords would have given their Bank account particulars. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that non-issuance of notice under section 8 (3) of the Act to the landlords is too technical to dismiss RC No. 193 of 1997, cannot be sustained. For the above reason, the order in RC No. 270 of 1991 certainly operates as res judicata. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that non-issuance of notice under section 8 (3) of the Act to the landlords is too technical to dismiss RC No. 193 of 1997, cannot be sustained. For the above reason, the order in RC No. 270 of 1991 certainly operates as res judicata. ( 8 ) THE cumulative effect of the above discussion is that there are no merits in the revision petitions and they deserve to be dismissed for more than on reason. Consequently, all the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.