Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 90 (AP)

Mara Venkata Lingam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-06-18

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, Senior Counsel, representing the learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Khader Mastan, counsel representing the Advocate General office, and with their consent this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The important legal aspect that has arisen for consideration in this Writ Petition is that when the Rent Courts as envisaged in Section 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Residential and Non-residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2018) [for short 'the Act'] are not constituted, what will be the remedy for the concerned parties and whether the Civil Courts can entertain the suits for injunction and other reliefs till such Rent Courts are constituted. 3. The factual matrix is thus: The writ petitioner filed an unnumbered suit 2018 before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, averring that he took on lease the plaint schedule shop from the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- for six years on 27.7.2017. The plaintiff was regularly paying the monthly rent till August, 2018 and subsequently when the plaintiff offered rent for the month of September, 2018 in the first week of October, 2018, the defendants did not receive the rent amount on one pretext or other There was some mediation and the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were somehow determined to see that the plaintiff is evicted from the suit schedule shop The plaintiff contends that he is a statutory tenant and he cannot be evicted without following due process of law. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule shop as a tenant. 4. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, vide order dated 30.10.2018 by referring Section 40 of the Act returned the plaint on the observation that by virtue of said Section the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of the matters relating to the provisions of the Act. 4. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, vide order dated 30.10.2018 by referring Section 40 of the Act returned the plaint on the observation that by virtue of said Section the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of the matters relating to the provisions of the Act. When the plaintiff brought it to that notice of the learned Junior Civil Judge that so far the Rent Courts as mentioned in Section 30 of the Act were not constituted and therefore, the Civil Court could assume jurisdiction till such Rent Courts are constituted however, the learned Junior Civil Judge observing that on that aspect the Act was silent and therefore, he cannot assume jurisdiction ultimately returned the plaint Aggrieved the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid unnumbered suit. 5. Though in this Writ Petition the petitioner sought for a relief of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not establishing the Rent Courts as provided under Section 30 of the Act as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to constitute the Rent Courts however, learned Counsel submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Dhadi Sahu, (1994) Supp 1 SCC 257 the Civil Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC till the Rent Courts are established under Section 30 of the Act and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the Writ Petition in that regard. 6. Sri Syed Khader Mastan, counsel representing the Advocate General Office, on instructions would submit that steps are now under afoot for establishment of the Rent Courts as laid down under Section 30 of the Act and within a reasonable time the Rent Courts will be established in consultation with Hon'ble High Court. 7. As can be seen the Andhra Pradesh Residential and Non-residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2018) was brought into force by repealing the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, the new enactment shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, the new enactment shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the A.P. Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 118, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department, dated 28.3.2018, notified the date as 28.3.2018 on which the aforesaid Act came into force in that view of the matter by virtue of Section 40 of the Act the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of the matters relating to the provisions of this Act. Section 40 of the Act reads as under: "40. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters:- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the provisions of this Act. (2) The jurisdiction of the Rent Court shall be limited to tenancy agreement submitted to it as per First Schedule and the question of title and ownership of premises shall not be entertained by it." However that is not the end of the matter. Section 30 of the Act ordains that the State Government may, by notification, constitute such number of Rent Courts in as many urban areas as may be deemed necessary by it. Such constitution of the Rent Courts will be done by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. However, as of now admittedly the Rent Courts are not constituted in terms of Section 30 of the Act. As already noted supra, the exercise is under way. In that view of the matter, whether the citizens are to be left remediless in this interregnum period is the question? 8. In W.P. No. 9681 of 2008, the learned single in this regard referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax's case referred supra, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that till the adjudicatory machinery contemplated under an enactment is brought into existence, the arrangement that has been functional prior to it would continue. 9. 9. Applying the above ratio, it can be said that till the establishment of the Rent Courts terms of Section 30 of the Act has taken place, the Civil Courts, which are vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the civil suits can also entertain the suits filed by the lessees seeking injunction and other relevant reliefs. 10. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, with a direction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. In consequence miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.