Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.NEELADRI RAO
B.R.Andewar - Appellant
Versus
Lingari Narsimha - Respondent
Decided On : 02-14-92
EVICTION - WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - RES JUDICATA - ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION - RAILWAY EMPLOYEE - SECTION 10(3)(C), 10(4)(1), 11 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and additional accommodation. The Rent Controller held against the landlord on both grounds, but the Appellate Court held in favor of the landlord on both grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the finding of the Small Causes Court in a suit for rent operates as res judicata in a rent control proceeding, and that the landlord had established that he bonafidely required additional accommodation for his family.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding of the Small Causes Court in a suit for rent operates as res judicata in a rent control proceeding? 2. Whether the landlord had established that he bonafidely required additional accommodation for his family?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plea of res judicata on general principles can be raised even in quasi-judicial proceedings, and that the findings of the Court in the suit for rent operated as res judicata in the rent control proceeding. 2. The court held that the landlord had established that he bonafidely required additional accommodation for his family, as the two rooms in his occupation were not sufficient for his family of six, and the portion in occupation of the tenant also consisted of only two rooms.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and upheld the order of the Appellate Court.
( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s revision petition. The respondent herein filed the eviction petition in regard to the premises bearing Municipal No. 11-4-554 situated at Chilkalguda, Secunderabad on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from April to September 1985, and additional accommodation. The learned Rent Controller held against the respondent landlord on both the grounds while the Appellate Court held in favour of the landlord on both the grounds.
( 2 ) THE landlord pleaded that there are number of portions in the house belonging to him and he is residing with his wife and five children in the portion bearing municipal No. l 1-4-553 and the revision petitioner (for short the tenant ) is residing in the adjoining portion bearing municipal No. 11-4-554.
( 3 ) PORTION bearing Municipal No. 11-4-550 belonging to this landlord was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- to this tenant. He shifted into the portion bearing municipal No. 11-4-551 onl-9-1977 in the same house. In 1982 he shifted into the portion bearing municipal No. 11-4-554. The Appellate Court held that the portions bearing municipal Nos. 11-4-550, 11-1-551, 11-4-554, 11-4-553 and some other portions form part of the same house. The said finding was not challenged during the arguments in this revision petition and hence it need not be adverted to for disposal of this revision petition.
( 4 ) THE points in controversy in regard to the ground of wilful default are as to whether the rent is Rs50/- per month from 1-9-1977 as claimed by the landlord or it continued to be Rs. 40/- per month throughout as pleaded by the tenant; and whether the rent from April to September 1985 was not paid as stated by the landlord or whether it was paid as contended for the tenant.
( 5 ) THERE is admittedly no documentary evidence in regard to the rate of rent from 1-9-1971. After filing this eviction petition on 19-11-1985, the landlord filed S. C. No. 46 of 1985 on 21-11-1985 for recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant herein in regard to this premises for the period of six months i. e. from april 1985 to the end of September, 1985 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The said suit was decreed on 30-6-1987 (vide Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 certified copies of the judgment and decree therein ). C. R. P. No. 1992/87 filed against the said judgment was dismissed. The Appellate Court held on appreciation of the evidence that the monthly rent was Rs. 50/-, and in view of the judgment in S. C. No. 46 of 1985, the default was held as proved, and the same was considered as wilful default in payment of lent from April to September, 1985.
( 6 ) IT was urged for the tenant as under: The landlord can file a petition under section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (for short rent Control Act ), if there are arrears of rent and there is a bar of civil suit for recovery of the rent after the eviction petition is filed. It is for the forums constituted under the Rent Control Act to determine and decide as to whether there is wilful default in payment of rent, and hence the finding of the Civil Court in Small Cause suit does not operate as res judicata. But both the above two contentions are not tenable. Admittedly there is no express provision in the Rent Control Act barring the Civil Court from entertaining a suit for recovery of rent after a petition for eviction was filed. Even by implication it cannot be stated that such a suit is barred. Section 11 of the Rent control Act merely provides that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been filed by a landlord under Section 10 shall not be entitled to contest the application or the appeal under Section 20 unless he pays to the landlord or deposits with the controller or the Appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit and to continue to pay any rent or deposit which may subsequently be
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
