Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
Mirza - Appellant
Versus
K.Balaklstaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 06-09-75
EVICTION SUIT - JURISDICTION - ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 3 - APPLICABILITY - BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BEFORE 26TH AUGUST 1957 - LEASE AGREEMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(1) - EFFECT - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of defendants from the suit premises, alleging that the 1st defendant was their tenant and had committed wilful default in payment of rent. The 1st defendant contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit premises were covered by the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the provisions of the Act were applicable to the suit premises. The court found that the building was constructed before 26th August 1957 and that the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs' father and the 1st defendant in 1959 was in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Act. The court held that such contravention did not render the provisions of the Act inapplicable to the building and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit premises was reconstructed in 1958 and as such the court is competent to entertain the suit for eviction? 2. Whether the notice dated 24-1-69 issued by the plaintiff under S, 106 T. P. Act is valid and thereby the suit tenancy is determined?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the suit premises as the building was constructed before 26th August 1957. The court further held that the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs' father and the 1st defendant in 1959 was in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Act, but that such contravention did not render the provisions of the Act inapplicable to the building. The court relied on the decision in Murlidhar vs. State of U. P., where it was held that a lease made in violation of the provisions of a rent control act would be valid between the parties and would create the relationship of landlord and tenant between them, although it might not bind the authorities concerned.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the lower court, and held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree of the learned V Additional judge. City civil Court, Hyderabad dated March 17, 1972 by which the suit instituted by the respondents herein was decreed.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed to put the respondents in vacant possession of the premises 12-5-920 to 925 including Damdama situated at Charminar Chowk Maidan khan Hyderabad evicting the appellants and to pass a decree for an amount of Rs. 2,863-25 Ps. as compensation for use and occupation and for future compensation from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession.
( 3 ) THE facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be staged. The plaintiffs are the owners of the premises in question. The 1st defendant obtained from the plaintiffs father the premises in question by executing a rental deed dated 26th October, 1959 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- for running a hotel known as Minar Cafe That rental deed was for a period of 11 months. Subsequent to the expiration of that period, the 1st defendant continued in possession as tenant on the same terms and conditions by paying rents to the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs died in January. 1968 and the 1st defendant accepted the landlordship of the plaintiffs and paid rents to them only after the death of their father. Thus the plaintiffs according to the plaint, are landlords and the 1st defendant has bean the tenant of the plaintiffs for the said premises. The 1st defendant had to pay rents from december, 1968 to the end of September. 1969 and the 1st defendant paid only Rs. 2,556-76 and the balance is recoverable from the 1st defendant.
( 4 ) THE 1st defendant, two years prior to the filing of the suit, obtained a portion consisting of two rooms and the 1st floor of the said premises known as damdama" and agreed to pay Rs,75/- monthly as rent for the said premises only for one month but he did not vacate the said portion after che expiration of the said month and therefore he is liable to pay rent for the said premises at the rate of Rs. 75/-p. m. Th3 defendant-1 committed wilful default in the payment of rents due and is liable to be evicted from the suit premises and that the plaintiffs are entitled to collect the said dues from 1st defendant under Law.
( 5 ) THE 1st defendant sublet the portions of the said premises to 2nd defendant without any permission from the plaintiffs and that is contrary to the terms of the tenancy and on that ground also the defendants are liable to be evicted.
( 6 ) 1 st defendant has also obtained on rent premises belonging to one anjayya, uncle of the plaintiffs, the premises situated by the side of the plaintiffs premises. The 1st defendant without the permission of the plaintiffs got removed the wall in between the premises rented out by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant and the premises belonging to anjalah and combined both the premises. The material value and utility of the premises have thus been Impaired by the 1st defendant and on this ground also the defendants are liable to vacate it. Plaintiffs issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 24-1 -1969 and got terminated the tenancy of 1st defendant and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to get back possession of the premises from the defendants.
( 7 ) PARAGRAPH 13 of the plaint is important and it reads thus. "that the tenancy contract is dated 26-10-1959 and the premises is reconstructed again in 1958. Hence as per the decision of A. P. High Court regarding section 3 of Hyderabad Building (Rent. Lease, and Eviction) Control Act, this honourable Court is competent to try this suit".
( 8 ) THE written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 shows that the 1st defendant is being continued even after the expiry of the period fixed by the registered rental deed dt. 26-10-19
AI
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
