2006 Supreme(AP) 302

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
G.Anjaneeya Prasad - Appellant
Versus
S.Vinod Kumar - Respondent
Decided On : 03-03-06

Headnote:

A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 -Section 10 (1), 32 (c) - Suit schedule - suit was decreed - executable eviction decree - plaintiff is the owner of suit premises, by reason of a family settlement - He filed the suit alleging that the first defendant took the suit premises on lease from the mother of the plaintiff on a monthly rent and the lease commenced - Lease was for a period of eleven months. The lease was extended subsequently on a monthly rent - Plaintiff was also running STD booth in shop, plaintiff s mother issued a notice to the plaintiff to vacate and handover the shop, in which the plaintiff is running STD booth. Therefore, first defendant was informed about family settlement requesting to vacate the suit premises, in vain. In the meanwhile, plaintiff met with an accident, and taking advantage of the same, the first defendant did not pay the rents amounting Further, first defendant inducted the second defendant into suit mulgi without knowledge and permission of the plaintiff. He issued quit notice asking the defendants to vacate the suit premises, which he did not do, and therefore the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule premises for delivery of vacant possession, for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits per month - Held, appellate Court much before section 32 (c) of the Rent Control Act came into force i. e. , 28. 5. 2005. The decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court has become final. Mere pendency of the second appeal for admission before this Court does not in any manner affect the finality of the decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by appellate court. Be it noted, unless the second appeal is accepted by this Court framing a substantial question of law, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the lower Courts is at large nor can it be said that the decree passed by the trial Court is eclipsed by mere pendency of the second appeal at the stage of admission. Therefore, Section 32 (c) of the Rent Control Act cannot come to the rescue of the defendants. At the relevant time, the suit was instituted, decree was passed and such decree was confirmed by the trial Court. Rent Control Act had no application to the suit premises and therefore the defendants cannot even take shelter under Section 10 (1) of the Rent Control act - Second appeal is devoid of any merit and as a consequence of the decision of the Full Bench in this case, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission - Second Appeal is Dismissed.