Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, P.S.MISHRA
Hotel Priya, Rep.by its Managing Partner, V.Subrahmanyam, Secunderabad - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Finace Corporation through its M.D.Chirag AH Lane, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-12-95
Eviction - Tenant - Statutory Tenant - Lease - Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act - Possession of Premises
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant of the premises, had some debt to discharge to the Financial Corporation, which initiated action under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act, seizing the moveables and sealing the premises. The single Judge ordered handing over possession to the owners without proper eviction action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the corporation's action could not be used as a proceeding for eviction of the tenant, as the tenant had become a statutory tenant after the lease period expired. The court also noted that matters such as alleged lease forgery and default in rent payment should be determined in an appropriate legal proceeding.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the order for handing over possession to the owners without proper eviction action, and the jurisdiction of the court in the instant proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the corporation's action could not be used for eviction of the tenant, and that matters such as lease declaration and cancellation should be determined in accordance with law in an appropriate legal proceeding.
Final Decision: The order of the single Judge was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed with the above observations.
( 1 ) NO one has appeared for the appellants. Heard learned counsel for the corporation and learned counsel for the respondents (owners of the building in question ).
( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant who is a tenant of the premises, has some debt of the Financial Corporation to discharge and the Financial corporation has initiated artion under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh State financial Corporation Act, in connection with which it has seized the moveables and sealed the premises. Learned single Judge has however, ordered for handing over the possession of the premises to the owners without there being any action in accordance with law for eviction of the tenant. This evidently is an order which cannot be sustained under any law.
( 3 ) A tenant is the occupant of a holding in the capacity of a lessee and if the period of lease has expired, he becomes a statutory tenant and if there is liability, liable for eviction for which legal action is required to be taken by the owner of the building. All that has happened in the instant proceeding is that the corporation has stepped into the shoes of the tenant as the pawnee. The in stant proceeding cannot be allowed to be used as a proceeding for eviction of the tenant. There is some case pleaded on behalf of the writ petitioner - respondents, alleged owners of the property, that the tenant appellant has forged a lease document for ten years and there is also default in payment of rent, etc. These however, are matters which can be gone into in an appropriate proceeding for determination of the lease of declaration for the cancellation of the lease in accordance with law. If so advised, writ petitioner - respondents, alleged owners of the property, can take appropriate action in accordance with law. The impugned order for the said reason is wholly without jurisdiction.
( 4 ) THE order of the learned single Judge is set aside, the writ appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed with the observations as above.
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
