SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(AP) 364

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Tulsi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Gulab Kanzar Bai - Respondent
Decided On : 12-13-77

The phrase all arrears in section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 means the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of whether the recovery of any portion of the same would be barred by time.

Headnote:

ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 11(1) - Arrears of Rent - Interpretation - Deposit of Arrears as Condition Precedent for Appeal - Includes Time-Barred Arrears.

Fact of the Case:

Tenant filed an appeal against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority directed the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as a condition for granting a stay of the eviction order. The tenant challenged this direction, arguing that he was not liable to deposit arrears of rent that were barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the phrase all arrears in section 11(1) of the Act means the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of whether the recovery of any portion of the same would be barred by time. The court reasoned that the provision was not primarily made for obtaining payment of arrears of rent, but rather as a condition precedent for the tenant to contest an eviction petition or prefer an appeal against an order of eviction.

Issues: 1. Whether the tenant is liable to deposit arrears of rent that are barred by limitation as a condition for preferring an appeal against an eviction order? 2. Whether the appellate authority can direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent before deciding the question of the tenant's denial of the landlord's title?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the phrase all arrears in section 11(1) of the Act to mean the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of whether the recovery of any portion of the same would be barred by time. The court reasoned that the provision was not primarily made for obtaining payment of arrears of rent, but rather as a condition precedent for the tenant to contest an eviction petition or prefer an appeal against an order of eviction. 2. The court held that the appellate authority can direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent before deciding the question of the tenant's denial of the landlord's title. The court reasoned that the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant holds good till the appeal is disposed of by the appellate authority.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, holding that there were no merits in the petition.

RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings taken under section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act . The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent, the landlord. The eviction petition is filed on the following grounds ; (1) the tenant has denied the title of the landlord without any bona fides; (2) the tenant committed Wilful default in payment of rent; (3) the tenant sub-let the building without the prior permission of the landlord and (4) the building is required bona fide for the personal occupation of the landlord.- the Rent Controller found all the four grounds in favour of the landlord and accordingly passed orders of eviction. Aggrieved by that, as provided under section 20 of the Act, the tenant preferred en appeal before the court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, hyderabad, which is the appellate authority. It is provided under section 11 (1) of the Act that:"no tenant against whom an application for- eviction has been made by a landlord under Sec. 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any appeal under Sec. 20 against any order made by the Contorller, unless he has paid 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 up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due to in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be".

( 2 ) THEREFORE, under this provision, before a tenant is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, he has to pay to the landlord or deposit with the appellate authority alt arrears of rent due in respect of the building. Therefore, the Appellate Authority while entertaining the appeal can insist upon the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent due till that date. When the petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority, the office called upon him to deposit the entire arrears of rent due up to the date of filing of the appeal before the same could be registered. But without making any such deposit, pending registration of the appeal the tenant filed an application for granting stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority granted stay on the condition of the tenant depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. It is against that order this civil revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) IN the revision petition two contentions are raised by the tenant, viz. (1) the arrears of rent mentioned in sec. 11 (1) of the Act are the arrears which are legally recoverable only and therefore the liability to deposit arrears of rent cannot extend to arrears for a period more than three years, as the recovery of arrears for a period beyond three years would be barred by time and (2) as the petitioner questioned the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent by denying the title of the respondent to the building and that question being a jurisdictional one, it must be decided first by the appellate authority before any direction can be given to the petitioner for depositing the arrears of rent.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the first contention, the question for consideration is wheiher according to the provision contained in section 11 (1) of the Act the tenant, must deposit the entire arrears of rent including the arrears of rent the recovery of which through court would the barred by time. In the decision K. Ramulu V. Govt. of andhra Pradesh (1) (1975) A. L. T. p. 220) a Division Bench of this court consisting of S. Obul Reddi, Chief Justice and K. Punnayya, justice, took the view that the phraseology in used section 11 of the act, "payment of all arrears" means payment of the entire arrears irrespecti
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top