Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Mohd.Moheinuddin Farooqui - Appellant
Versus
Mohd.Abdul Hameed - Respondent
Decided On : 03-07-95
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 11 (1) AND 11 (4) - ARREARS OF RENT - ADJUSTMENT OF DEPOSIT - EVICTION - WILFUL DEFAULT - INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL PROVISIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON COURT'S DECISION: 1. Section 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (Rent Control Act) empowers the Rent Controller to direct a tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. 2. Section 11 (4) of the Rent Control Act authorizes the Rent Controller to order eviction of a tenant for failure to comply with a direction issued under Section 11 (1). 3. In determining the amount of arrears of rent due, the Rent Controller must consider any adjustments made by the tenant from the security deposit. 4. A tenant's failure to comply with an order under Section 11 (1) may constitute wilful default and provide grounds for eviction under Section 10 of the Rent Control Act. 5. The scope and ambit of orders passed under Section 9 (3) (permission to deposit rent in court) and Section 11 (1) (direction to deposit arrears of rent) are distinct, and an order under Section 9 (3) cannot be used to sustain an order under Section 11 (4). 6. The Rent Controller must consider the specific period for which arrears of rent are payable and cannot direct the deposit of arrears from a date prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the orders of the Rent Controller and appellate authority directing him to deposit arrears of rent from the commencement of the tenancy and to vacate the premises for non-compliance. The petitioner claimed that he had adjusted the arrears from the security deposit and that the direction to pay rent from a period prior to the respondent's purchase of the property was unsustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Controller and appellate authority erred in directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from the commencement of the tenancy without considering the adjustment made from the security deposit. The court also held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent from October 1991, as admitted by him, but that the direction to vacate the premises under Section 11 (4) was unsustainable since the order under Section 11 (1) was not legally sustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Controller could direct the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from the commencement of the tenancy without considering the adjustment made from the security deposit? 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay rent from October 1991? 3. Whether the direction to vacate the premises under Section 11 (4) was sustainable given that the order under Section 11 (1) was not legally sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 11 (1) of the Rent Control Act to require the Rent Controller to consider any adjustments made by the tenant from the security deposit when determining the amount of arrears of rent due. 2. The court found that the petitioner's admission that he had fallen into arrears from October 1991 was sufficient to establish his liability to pay rent from that date. 3. The court held that the order to vacate the premises under Section 11 (4) could not be sustained because the order under Section 11 (1) was not legally sustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and appellate authority, and directed the petitioner to deposit any arrears of rent due subsequent to July 1994 within 15 days. The court also directed the petitioner to pay future rents regularly on the first of each succeeding month and authorized the Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 11 (4) in case of default.
( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is a tenant. The respondent filed R. C. No. 602 of 1993 on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The respondent-landlord filed I. A. No. 784/93 under Section 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter, referred to as the rent Control act ) seeking a direction to the tenant petitioner to deposit the arrears amounting to Rs. 8,945/- for the period 18-8-1988 to september 1993. and a further sum of Rs. 6. 600/- towards the rent for the amenities provided. The Rent Controller allowed the LA. by his order dated 16-7-1994 and directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 250/- per month from 18-8-1988 to 20-6-1990 and at Rs. 285/- per month from 21 -6-1990 to 30-6-1994 by 1-8-1994. The petitioner was also directed to pay future rent at Rs. 285/- per month on the 5th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred R. A. No. 472 of 1994 before the appellate authority (Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court) who. by his order dated 24-10-1994 dismissed the appeal. C. R. P. No. 100 of 1995 is filed against that order.
( 2 ) THE respondent landlord filed another interlocutory application I. A. No. 588 of 1994 under Section 11 (4) of the Act seeking a direction that the tenant should deliver vacant possession by reason of his failure to comply with the directions given by the Rent Controller in I. A. No. 784 of 1993. The said I. A having been allowed by an order dated 10-8-1994, the tenant preferred r. A. N6. 515 of 1994. The appellate authority dismissed the said appeal as a consequence of dismissal of the said RANo. 472 of 1994, c. R,p. No. 101 of 1995 is directed against that order.
( 3 ) THE case of the respondent is that he purchased the premises bearing No. 17-3-756/3 situated at Jaffer Road, yakutpura, Hyderabad from one Sri P. Ramaswamy (P. W. I) on 22-5-1992 and that the petitioner failed to pay rent from the inception of the tenancy. To cover up his default, he filed an application R. C. No. 613 of 1992 under Section 9 (3) of the Act for permission to deposit the rent in Court as he entertained a doubt as to who was entitled to receive the rent. That petition was allowed with a direction to deposit the rent including the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- into court to (he credit of the respondent (2nd respondent in R. C. No. 613 of 1992) who became the owner of the property by purchasing the same from Sri Ramaswamy (1st respondent therein ). The arrears of rent was directed to be deposited within 15 days from the date of the order and the future rent on 5th of every succeeding month. This order was passed on 23-4-1993. The directions given in that order were not complied with and the petitioner did not pay the rent upto 30th September 1993 i. e. til the date of filing I ANo. 784 of 1993. Hence the I. A was filed to direct the petitioner tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 16,545/- towards arrears of rent.
( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner-tenant is that he took the premises on lease on 18-8-1988. The rent was Rs. 250/- per month and it was enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month in 1991 (including Rs. 157-towards electricity charges ). He pleaded that he was not aware of the purchase of the property by the respondent from Sri P. Ramaswamy as the sale-deed was not made available to him. He used to pay rent to Sri P. Ramaswamy regularly and he was having the receipt. After the month of October, 1991 Sri Ramaswamy refused to receive the rent But, he went on sending the rents through money order to Sri ramaswamy upto January 1992 even though ramaswamy refused to receive the same. On 16th March 1992, the petitioner states, that he sent a legal notice to Sri Ramaswamy calling upon him to furnish the Account number of the bank in twin cities for the purpose of crediting rent In April
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
