Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Ghouse Mohiuddin - Appellant
Versus
L.Bhaskar Reddy - Respondent
C.R.P.No.3604/93
Decided On : 04-14-95
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. K. Mallikarjuna Rao, Mr. R. Subash Reddy
HELD: In this case while the petitioner/tenant derived a temporary advantage of not being thrown out of the premises for non-payment of rent, when once the revision petition was dismissed without granting any time for deposit of rent, the petitioner should bear the attendant consequences of not depositing the rent within time prescribed by the Appellate Court i.e., on or before 1.9.91. He chose the course of seeking stay orders to postpone the effect of the order passed under Sec.11 (3) read with Section 11 (1). Those interim orders which do not survive on the disposal of the main case, do not have the effect of altering the prescribed date laid down by the Appellate Court for the deposit of rent. The theory of exclusion of time covered by the stay orders is wholly out or place. Firstly, the Act does not provide for any such exclusion and secondly the stay or suspension not being one imposed on the petitioner against his will cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of enlarging the time granted by the Appellate Court. If, while disposing of the revision this Court had granted further time specifically for the deposit of rent, the position would have been different. Far from giving any such specific direction, a reading of the, the concluding part of the judgment in CRP indicates that the request made by the petitioner to allow him to deposit the rent by a particular date did not find favour with the learned Judge who observed that mere furnishing of bank guarantee pending the CRP. will not absolve the petitioner s obligation in paying the arrears of rent. It is not without significance that the learned Judge directed the Rent Controller to pass "appropriate orders" in view of the dismissal of the C.R.P. which again implies and reinforces the idea of rejection of the petitioner s counsel s request to allow time for payment. In the absence of an order specifically extending the time for deposit of rent, the question whether the petitioner committed default in payment or deposit of the rent as directed by the Appellate Authority shall be judged on the very terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. That order gave time to the petitioner only upto 1.9.91. The deposit of the amount more than two years later, after the dismissal of the C.R. P cannot be regarded as compliance or even substantial compliance of the order passed under Sec.11 (3) read with Section 11 (1). It there for follows that the Rent Controller was justified in passing the order under Section 11 (4) which stood confirmed by the judgment under revision.
In the present case, the Rent Controller on resolving the dispute raised by the tenant, passed the order on 12.4.91 granting 15 days time for deposit of the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. On appeal, the Appellate Authority granted time upto 1.9.91 for deposit of the arrears which accrued till then and if the amount was not paid, the tenant was warned that appropriate orders under Sec.11 (4) would be passed. As already noticed, the grant of stay by the Appellate Authority upto 22.1 0.91 or the interim suspension granted pending revision at the instance of the petitioner himself does not amount to extension of time for payment. The stay or suspension order only places a temporary ban on the further proceedings to be taken under Sec. 11 (4). When once the revision is dismissed without granting any further time for deposit of rent, it follows that the time limit set out by the appellate authority for the payment of arrears will have full effect. What follows, there for is, it must be deemed that the tenant failed to deposit or pay the rent as aforesaid within the meaning of Section 11 (4) and unless sufficient cause is shown by the tenant for the non-payment of rent in accordance with the order passed by the appellate anthology, further proceedings are liable to be stopped and an order of eviction should follow under Sec.11 (4).
When once it is found that the plea set up by the tenant is not genuine and the conduct of the tenant in contesting the matter lacks bona fides, there is no scope at all to plead sufficient cause . Viewed from this perspective and considering the indisputable facts of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has established sufficient cause for not depositing the rents within the time stipulated by the Appellate Authority;
( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Petitioner is the tenant. He has questioned the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, R. A. No. 174 of 1993) confirming the order passed in R. C. No. 345/89. By an order dated 29-2-1993 in R. C. 345/89, the learned Rent Controller closed the R. C. in view of the order passed on the same day in LA. 24/93 allowing the application of the landlord under Section 11 (4) of the Act. The petitioner-tenant was directed, to vacate the premises within two months.
( 2 ) THE main Rent Control case -- R. C. 345/89 was filed for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent and also on the ground that the premises was required for personal occupation of the landlord. Along with the main petition, the landlord also filed an application under Section 11 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 35,000. 00. In the mam R. C. as well as in the application filed under Section 11, it was alleged that the tenant failed to pay the rent from 1-9-1979 onwards, hence, the landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy and filed a suit -- O. S. No. 1187/81 (on the file of the TI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court) for eviction and arrears of rent and damages, that an ex parte decree was granted, that on appeal, in CCCA No. 144/82, the High Court while confirming the decree as to payment of arrears of rent, set aside the decree with regard to eviction on the ground that the building was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, that the tenant during the pendency of the appeal paid a sum of Rs. 24,000. 00 to satisfy the decree passed in O. S. 1187/81 and that after adjusting the said amount, still an amount of Rs. 35,000. 00 was due towards arrears of rent by the date of filing the petition. In reply of the application filed under Section 11, the petitioner stated that he ceased to be a tenant with effect from the date of agreement of sale dated 5-8-1979 entered into by his son with the landlord and that his son was put in possession of the premises pursuant to the said agreement of sale. He admitted that the suit filed by the petitioner s son for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale was dismissed but maintained that an appeal is pending in this Court. The Rent Controller inter alia relied upon the decree passed in O. S. No. 1187/ 81 and the judgment of this Court in CCA No. 114/82 confirming the decree partly with regard to the arrears of rent and also the judgment in O. S. 509/85 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner s son for specific performance of sale and allowed the application, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 35,000. 00within 15 days from the date of the order i. e. , 12-4-1991, failing which, it was stated in the order that the order under Section 11 (4) would follow. Against this order, an appeal --R. C. No. 121/91 was filed : The appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) by a judgment dated 1-8-1991. Pending the appeal, it appears there was an order suspending the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller in I. A. No, 430/89. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Authority directed the petitioner (appellant therein) Co pay on or before 1-9-1991 the accumulated arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 47,500. 00, failing which, it was directed that the Rent Controller shall pass orders under Section 11 (4 ). The petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent by the stipulated date. But he filed an application for stay on 27-8-1991 on the ground that he, intended to file a revision in the High, Court. The Appellate Court stayed its own order and extended the same from time to time up to 22-10-1991.
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
