Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Heerachand Poonamchand, H.U.F.represented by kartha Chainchand Challani - Appellant
Versus
Kancban Cycle Trading Company, Partnership Firm by Shankerlal Agarwal - Respondent
C.R.P.No.3801/89
Decided On : 12-19-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. C.P. Sarathy,Mr. N. Raghavan
Held : The word rent is not defined in the Act From the definition of rent as contained in Sec 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that the rent is the consideration which a tenant has agreed to pay to the landlord for the beneficial use of the demised premises It is the intention of the parties in regard to the payment of consideration that matters In the instant case, the intention of the parties is that the tenant agreed to pay a rent of Rs 900/- and also a further sum of Rs 300/- towards charges for amenities The intention is that a total amount of Rs 1,200/- is payable for the letting out the suit premises to the tenant Since the amount of rent exceeds Rs 1,000/- the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is excluded in terms of GOMsNo 636, dt 29121983
Simply because both parties have not raised any point with regard to the jurisdiction, it does not mean that the Court is precluded from going into that question and decide that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the case In this case, the consideration that is being paid by the tenant to the landlord is more than Rs1,000/- naturally the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction It is the duty of the Rent Controller at the time of passing either the interim or the final orders to see whether he has got jurisdiction or not to entertain an application
( 1 ) THE landlord, who is the petitioner herein, filed an application before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit mu gi on the ground of wilful default and personal occupation. Pending that application, he filed an application under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act for short) praying the Court to direct the respondent-tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,800/- towards arrears of rent from August, 1987 till September, 1988 failing which orders may be passed to evict the tenant from the suit mulgi. After hearing the respective contentions of the rival parties, the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit rents and amenity charges at the rate of Rs. 1200/- from August, 1987 till September, 1988 to a tune of Rs. 16,800/- and further at the same rate of Rs. 1200/- till the date of that order on or before 30-3-1989 failing which the tenant shall be evicted from the suit mulgi. As the tenant could not pay the rent within the stipulated time, he filed an LA. under Section 11 (3) and (4) of the Act read with Section 151 C. P. C. to extend the time. That application was rejected. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad contending inter alia that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction in view of the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller that Rs. 1,200/- has to be payable towards rent and amenity charges. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the tenant holding that the rent includes amenity charges, and therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 11 of the Act is without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the order. The appellate court also found that since the tenant has been evicted in pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act, it directed the rent Controller to restore possession of the demised premises to the tenant, hence the rivision petition by the landlord.
( 2 ) IN this revision petition it is contended by Sri C. P. Sarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the appeal filed by the tenant as such is not maintainable.
( 3 ) THE contention raised by the landlord is not tenable. It is only an interlocutory order passed in a matter pending under Section 11 of the act. The appellate Court has rightly entertained the appeal and the contention that the appeal is not maintainable is not correct. According to the learned counsel that the tenant himself in the counter filed by him admitted that Rs, 300/- is for amenities and as amenities were not provided, he stopped payment of rent and that amount has to be adjusted. It is not in dispute that the amount payable towards rent is Rs. 900/-and for amenities it is Rs. 300/- per month. Whether the charges for amenities also have to be included in the amount that is being paid in lieu of letting out of the premises is a matter that has to be gone into.
( 4 ) THE word rent is not defined in the Act. The word lease also is not defined in the Act. Therefore, it is but proper to look into the definition as provided under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as follows :"a lease of immoveable propeaty is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in prepetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. "
( 5 ) ON a close reading of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that the lease is a right to enjoy th
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
