Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU, PUNNAIAH
B.VINOD KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
D.RAVINDERNATH - Respondent
Decided On : 08-28-84
G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 3-1-1966, published in A.P. Gazette extraordinary dated 5-1-1966, is applicable to the courts that were in existence on the date when the G.O. came into force, and not to the courts which came into existence or established after the G.O. was notified.
Fact of the Case:
The question for consideration involved in these revisions is in respect of G. O. Ms. No. 4, dated 3-1-1966, published in A. P. Gazette extraordinary dated 5-1-1966. The question is, as to whether this G. O. is applicable to the Courts that were in existence on the date when the G. O. came into force, or whether it would apply to the courts which came into existence or established after the G. O. was notified.
Finding of the Court:
The notification made under G. O. Ms. No. 4 would take in not only the Courts existing on the date of the said notification but any court which may have been constituted subsequently, from time to time.
Issues: Whether G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 3-1-1966, published in A.P. Gazette extraordinary dated 5-1-1966, is applicable to the courts that were in existence on the date when the G.O. came into force, or whether it would apply to the courts which came into existence or established after the G.O. was notified.
Ratio Decidendi: The District Munsifs Court at Jaggayyapet was constituted as one such court pursuant to that policy. The Officers posted to preside over such newly constituted District Munsifs Courts exercise either civil or criminal judicial powers, as the case may be. We cannot visualise a situation where the district Munsifs forum is available to litigants of that taluk in matters, civil or criminal, but the same forum is not available for cases arising under the Act merely because a separate notification under Sec. 2 (iv) of the Act empowering that particular District Munsif to exercise the powers of a Controller under the Act was not issued.
Final Decision: C. R. P. Nos. 3132/83, 3135/83 and 3133/83 filed by the landlord are dismissed. CRP Nos. 881/84, 851/84 and 882/84 filed by the individual tenants are in consequence allowed, directing the landlord and the tenants in these respective cases to bear their respective costs throughout.
( 2 ) THESE eight revisions filed under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ) involve common questions and arise out of the individual judgments dated 29-10-1983 of the Pri. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, the Appellate authority under the Act, in R C. A. Nos. 117, 118, 119 and 120 of 1982 and cross Objections filed in each of those appeals. The Land Lord is common but the four tenants are different. For purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in the respect of the judgment as landlord and tenant.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid four appeals and the Cross Objections before the appellate Authority were directed against the eviction ordered or rejected on 31-8-1982 by the Rent Controller, Jaggayyapet, in R. C. C Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 1982 on his file which eviction petitions were earlier filed before the Rent Controller, Vijayawada; as R. C. C. Nos. 50, 51, 55 and 56 of 1980 and were transferred to the Rent Controller, Jaggayyapet, on applications filed before the Appellate Authority, seeking such transfer. The district Munsif s Court Jaggayyapet, was constituted by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 481, Home (Courtsa) Department, dated 29-3-1976. The Rent Controller, Jaggayyapet, ordered eviction of the individual tenants on the ground of alleged wilful default in the payment of rents in R. C. C. Nos. 3, 5 and 6 of 1982. R. C. C. No 4/82 was, however, dismissed as wilful default was found against. The Appellate authority while upholding those findings, howver, dismimissed the eviction petitions on the ground that the District Munsif, Jaggayyapet cannot exercise the powers of a Rent Controller unless he is appointed as Rent controller by notification under Sec. 2 (iv) of the Act and G. O. Ms. No. 4, dated 3-1-1966 published in the A. P. Gazette, dated 5-1-1966 would apply only to courts of District Munsiffs which were in existence on the date the said notification came into forced but not to the courts of District Munsiffs which came into existence subsequent to the date of the said notification.
( 4 ) C. R. P. No 3132/83, filed by the landlord and C. R. P. No. 881/84 filed by the tenant arise out of R. C. A. No. 117/82, relating to R. C. C. No. 3/82. C. R. P. No. 313/83, filed by the landlord and C. R P. No. 885/84, filed by the tenant arise out of R. C. A. No. 118/82, relating to R. C. C. No. 4/82. C. R. P. No. 3135/83, filed by the landlord and R. C P. No. 851/84, filed by the tenant arise out of R. C. A. No. 119/82, relating to R. C. C. No. 5/82. C. R. P. No. 3133/83, filed by the Landlord and C R. P. No. 882/84, filed by the tenant arise out of R. C. A. No. 120/82, relating to R. C. C, no. 6/82.
( 5 ) C. R. P. Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134, and 3135/83 came up for hearing before Muktadar, J. , who by order dated 20-3-1984 referred for consideration by Bench the question as to whether the notification is applicable to courts which were in existence on the date the G. O. came into force or whether it would apply even to courts which came into existence after the notification.
( 6 ) MR. P. L. Narasimha Sarma, Learned Counsel who appeared for the landlord and Mr. C. Poornaiah, learned counsel who appeared for the tenant expressed a desire for the final disposal of the revisions on all the points arisin
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
