Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 170 (AP)

Ummidi Venkata Rao v. Ghanto Suresh Kumar

2019-08-06

T.RAJANI

body2019
ORDER : T. RAJANI, J. 1. C.R.P. No. 2034 of 2018 arises out of order dated 01-03-2018 in I.A. No. 117 of 2016 in O.S. No. 9 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the Court below'), by virtue of which it dismissed the above-mentioned petition which was filed by the petitioner herein to reject the plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for want of jurisdiction. C.R.P. No. 1694 of 2019 arises out of order dated 01-05-2019 in I.A. No. 481 of 2018 in I.A. No. 2 of 2016 in O.S. No. 9 of 2016 on the file of the Court below, by virtue of which it dismissed the above petition which was filed by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside ex parte order dated 01-03-2018 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2016. The decision in C.R.P. No. 1694 of 2019 is dependant on the decision in C.R.P. No. 2034 of 2018. Hence, C.R.P. No. 2034 of 2018 is taken up for consideration in the foremost. 2. The petitioner-defendant, on the ground that civil suit is not maintainable in respect of the subject building, filed I.A. No. 117 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint. But the Court below, considering that the suit was not filed only for the relief of eviction but is also filed for arrears of rent and damages, dismissed the petition, holding that the aspect of jurisdiction can be decided in the suit itself by framing a preliminary issue. 3. Assailing the said order, this revision is preferred on the grounds that the Court below ought to have seen that the age of the subject building is more than 20 years and that therefore common law remedy is not available to the respondent-plaintiff and that it also ought to have seen that the rent of the subject building is Rs. 1,200/- per month and hence, it is only the rent control Court that has jurisdiction. 4. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.V.S.A. Rama Murty, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The question that arises for consideration in this case is 'Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred by law?" 6. 4. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.V.S.A. Rama Murty, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The question that arises for consideration in this case is 'Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred by law?" 6. It is not in dispute that the building is aged more than 20 years and that the rent for the building is Rs. 1,200/- per month. The only contention that is raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the suit is filed not only for eviction and arrears of rent but also for damages and hence, civil Court would have jurisdiction. A perusal of the plaint would show that the reliefs sought for are to handover vacant possession of the subject premises, to pay an amount of Rs. 43,200/- towards arrears of rent and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act'), do not provide for the relief of damages but under Section 11(3) of the Act, the rent controller has power to determine, summarily, the rent to be paid or deposited in case there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) which mandates that no tenant, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the controller under that Section or to prefer any appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the controller on the application, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. Hence, from the reading of the above provisions, it can be understood that controller is vested with jurisdiction to determine rent and also arrears of rent. 7. Hence, from the reading of the above provisions, it can be understood that controller is vested with jurisdiction to determine rent and also arrears of rent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 10 of the Act, when the building is more than 15 years old and when the rent is not more than Rs. 3,500/-, civil Court ceases to have jurisdiction and it is rent controller before whom landlord has to go, seeking for eviction. As regards the relief of damages, which cannot be tried by rent controller, learned counsel submits that in spite of the said relief not being provided under the Act, the respondent cannot invoke the jurisdiction of civil Court and in respect of eviction, he has to go before rent controller. In that regard, this Court relies on the judgment in SaiBaba v. Md. Kareem Khan 2003 (1) An.W.R. 75 (A.P.) : 2003 (3) ALD 403 . The facts of the said case are that defendant No. 5 therein was tenant in the subject premises. The entered into an agreement of sale. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and in the said suit, he also sought for delivery of the property from defendant No. 5. The Court held that so far as delivery of possession is concerned, it would result in eviction of defendant No. 5 who is residing as tenant in the said premises and hence, it is rent controller who would have jurisdiction to decide the said issue. It also relied on the judgment in N Ramachandra Rao and others v. Vasanta Rao 1985 (2) APLJ 136 , wherein it was held that Section 10 of the Act postulates that no tenant shall be ejected from the premises except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, for ejectment of a tenant in possession of a premises, the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on rent controller and thereby, the jurisdiction of civil Court is expressly ousted. 8. Merely by clubbing two reliefs, one of which is not triable by rent controller, the jurisdiction of rent controller cannot be ousted in respect of the decision of the issue pertaining to eviction of tenant from the subject premises and cannot be conferred on a civil Court. 9. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 9. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the plaint stands rejected. 10. C.R.P. No. 2034 of 2018 is accordingly allowed. Consequent to the orders passed in C.R.P. No. 2034 of 2018, there need not be any further orders in C.R.P. No. 1694 of 2019 and the same is closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.