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

1976 Supreme(AP) 104

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.R.VIMADALAL
S.Anjaiah - Appellant
Versus
K.Kishtamma - Respondent
Decided On : 07-09-76

The terms vacant and vacancy in Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act encompass not only physical vacancy but also constructive vacancy resulting from a change of possession. Failure to give notice under Section 3(1)(a) does not render the tenancy agreement void or illegal, and the Rent Controller retains jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act.

Headnote:

RENT ACT - SECTION 3 - NOTICE OF VACANCY - CONSTRUCTIVE VACANCY - LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - VALIDITY OF TENANCY AGREEMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sold a house to the respondent and continued to occupy it as tenants. The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioners for wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding that there was a vacancy that needed to be notified under Section 3 of the Rent Act and that the tenancy became void and illegal due to the absence of such notice. On appeal, the Chief Judge of the City Small Causes Court held that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition since there was no physical vacancy requiring notice under Section 3.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the words vacant and vacancy in Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act encompass not only physical vacancy but also constructive vacancy resulting from a change of possession. The court further held that the failure to give notice under Section 3(1)(a) does not render the tenancy agreement void or illegal, and the Rent Controller retains jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the terms vacant and vacancy in Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act apply only to physical vacancy or also include constructive vacancy. 2. The legal consequences of failing to provide notice under Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the language of Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act, which defines vacancy, to include both physical vacancy and constructive vacancy resulting from a change of possession. The court reasoned that the words or otherwise following the specific cases of vacancy in the section indicate a broad interpretation to cover all cases of constructive vacancy. 2. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar v. State of U.P., which held that a lease made in violation of the provisions of a rent control act is valid between the parties and creates a landlord-tenant relationship, although it may not bind the authorities concerned. The court concluded that the failure to give notice under Section 3(1)(a) of the Rent Act does not make the tenancy agreement void or illegal and does not deprive the Rent Controller of jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, upholding the order of the Chief Judge of the City Small Causes Court. The order of remand passed by the Chief Judge for disposal by the Rent Controller on merits was also upheld.

J. R. VIMADALAL, J.

( 1 ) 1. This is a petition in revision from the order of the learned Chief judge of the City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, allowing an appeal from the decision of the Rent Controller and holding that Sec. 3 of the Buildings (Lease. Rent and Evicton) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "rent Act") does not apply to this case and the Rent Controller, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain an eiction petition filed before him on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent-tenants.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the present petioners executed a registered sale deed in favour of the present respondent in respect of the house in question; that at the time of the execution of the said sale deed, the petitioners were in occupation of the said house; that thereafter the petitioners continued to live in the said house as tenants; and that the petitioners having committed default in payment of rent for the period 2-2-1968 to 1-9-1973 amounting to Rs. 3,608/- (after making certain deductions claimed by them), the present respondent filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller against the present petitioners which was dismissed by the rent Controller on the ground that it was not maintainable. It was held by the Rent Controller that there was a vacancy of which notice ought to have been given under Sec. 3 of the Rent Act and that such notice not having been given, the tenancy became void and illegal and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition under the Rent Act. On appeal to the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, however, a different view was taken. The learned Chief Judge took the view that since there was no physical vacancy in the present case on the date of execution of the rental agreement which necessitated a notice under Sec. 3 of the Rent Act, the Rent Controller had Jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition that was filed before him. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for his findings- it is from that order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes that the tenants have approached this court in revision.

( 3 ) IN support of the order of the learned Chief Judge, it was contended on behalf of the landlady that the tenants who were in possession of the said premises after selling the same to her. had delivered constructive possession of those premises by executing a rental agreement in her favour and that there was no actual physical vacancy which was required to be notified to the authorised officer under Sec. 3 of the Rent Act and the Rent Controller, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On behalf of the tenants, on the other hand, it was contended that the landlady was entitled to the possession of the said premises as soon as she purchased the house from them and that when after the sale she allowed them to continue in possession of the same as tenants, she was creating a tenancy for the first time, and it was submitted that, under these circumstances, there had been a vacancy, which ueeded to be notified to the authorised officer under Sec. 3 of the Rent Act. It was further contended, that, in the absence of such notice, the said tenancy itself became void and illegal and the Rent controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition under the Rent Act.

( 4 ) I will first turn to the relevant sections of the Rent Act with which I am concerned in the present case. Section 3 (1) (a) of the Rent Act is in the following terms: -"notice of Vacancy:- (1) (a) every landlord shall, within ten days after the building becomes vacant by his ceasing to occupy it, or by the termination of a tenancy, or by the eviction of the tenant or by release from requisition or otherwise, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government. "

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of the same section indicates that







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