SEETHARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE proposition posed by the Division Bench comprising A. V. Krishna Rao, and Mahusudan Rao, JJ. In this reference is,"is the authority in G. Eswaraiah v. Mahendrappa Khani 1969 (2) APLJ 66 shaken and is no longer good law by reason of the decision in Muralidhar v. State of U. P. AIR 1974 SC 1924 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Srikanth Neemkar V. G. Yelloji Rao 1977 (1) APLJ 80?"

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, a brief re sume of the facts is necessary. The sole defendant in O. S. No. 88 of 1971 is the Appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of vacant possession by ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule premises situated at Kattalmandi, Hyderabad, and also for damages for use and occupation of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 1961. The defendant executed an agreement of lease on 1-6-1961. Admittedly , the house property was built before 26/08/1957 and is, therefore, not exempt from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is also not disputed that the notice of vacancy as required by section 3 (1) of vacancy as required by section 3 (1) of vacancy as required by Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act has not been issued by the landlord and the letting to the tenant is in contravention of section 3 (5) of the Act.

( 3 ) ONE of the issues framed was,"whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the relief claimed"? The trial court decreed the suit answering the aforesaid issue in the affirmative. Hence the appeal, C. C. C. A. NO. 161 of 1974?"

( 4 ) IT is needless to refer in detail to the facts in the connected appeal, C. C. C. A. No. 169 of 1974 filed against the judgment in O. S. No. 94 of 1972 which is filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 88 of 1971 for perpetual and mandatory injunctions against the defendant therein restraining him from reconstructing rooms which he had illegally demolished in the suit property and also from further demolishing any portion of the said property. However , as consequence of decreeing O. S. No. 88 of 1971, O. S. No. 94 of 1972 was dismissed. Hence the appeal, C. C. C. A. No. 169 of 1974.

( 5 ) THEREFORE, the sole point that arises in this reference is whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and an answer to this, one way or the other, would ipso facto resolve the proposition posed under reference.

( 6 ) THE argument advanced by Sri Bankatlal Mandhana learned Counsel for the appellant, is, the suit is for recovery of possession of property situated in the City of Hyderabad and constructed prior to August , 1957. An agreement of lease was entered into between the parties , the relationship of landlord and tenant is subsisting, and the tenant can only be evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Civil Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Counsel submits that since 1952, the premises in question was let out to one Mumtaj who was running a dal mill therein. In the year 1958, he suffered a loss and sold away the mill to the appellant; and the previous owners Sriram Bhagawandas and Smt. Badami Bai attorney the tenancy in favour of the appellant in 1960. The respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit premises under a registered sale deed dated 18-4-1961; and a fresh lease deed was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent on 1-6-61. The appellant was already a tenant when the premises was purchased by the respondent, and there was no vacancy after the respondent purchased the property. It is submitted that it is the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act. 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Rent Control Act that is applicable to this case but not the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document