Back
1975 Supreme(AP) 255
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Desu Kotaiah - Appellant
Versus
Immadi Suryanarayana Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 12-18-75
The exemption under Section 32 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, applies only to newly constructed buildings and not to the reconstruction of buildings after demolishing the old buildings.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 32 (B) - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS - RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING - MEANING OF "CONSTRUCTED" - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed suits for eviction and recovery of possession of portions of a building occupied by the tenants. The tenants resisted the suits, contending that they could be evicted only under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act) and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The trial court dismissed the suits for eviction, holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction, while passing a decree for arrears of rent. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the exemption under Section 32 (b) of the Act was only granted as an incentive for the construction of new buildings and that it was never intended to apply to the demolition of old buildings and the reconstruction of new buildings on the site of the demolished buildings. The court further held that the word "constructed" in Section 32 (b) of the Act means the putting up of a new building where none has existed before and not the reconstruction of a building after demolishing the old building.
Issues: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the landlord for eviction and possession of portions of the building occupied by the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the landlord for eviction and possession of portions of the building occupied by the tenants. The court reasoned that Section 32 (b) of the Act exempts from the Act any building constructed on or after the 26th August 1957 and that the word "constructed" in Section 32 (b) means the putting up of a new building where none has existed before and not the reconstruction of a building after demolishing the old building. The court further held that Section 12 of the Act provides for the recovery of possession by a landlord for repairs, alterations, additions, or reconstruction and that the landlord should have recourse to Section 12 of the Act in cases where he wants to demolish the old building and reconstruct a new building on the site occupied by the old building.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments under appeal and dismissed the suits for eviction and possession. The appellants were entitled to proportionate costs throughout on the relief of possession and eviction sought by the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals may briefly be stated The respondent, who Is the same in these two appeals, will re referred to hereafter as the landlord and the appellants as the tenants . The landioid is the owner of what was originally a low terraced building in the main bazar at Tenali. The tenants have been In occupation of two separate porticns of that building tor a long time payice an annual rental of Rs 300/- each. The landlord desired to construct a first -flcor on this building and for that purpose had to practically demolish the existing law terraced building. He applied 10 the Mur iclpality and necessary permission was granted In October, 1963. The lease agreement between the landlord and the tenants was to expire by 9-8-1964. By virtue of an agreement come to between the Itndiord and the tenants, the tenants had vacated the portions of the building in their occupation in order to enable the landlord to carry out his reconstruction of the ground-floor and the const uction of the first-floor. The construction was completed even during the currency of the lease. The tenants were put in possession of the newly constructed portions of the ground-floor on the stipulation that the tenancy was to continue for a period of four years from 10-8-1964 to 9-8-1968 at an increased annual rental of Rs. 500/- The period off our years had expired by 9-8 1968. Inspite of a notice issued by the landlord to the tenants to vacate the portions of the building in their occupation they did not do so. They were also in arrears of rent. The landlord, therefore filed the two suits for eviction of the tenants and also for recovery of arrears of rent. The tenants resisted the suits for eviction. It was urged by them that they could be evicted only under section 10 of the andhra pradash Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, I960 (here ln after referred to as the Act") and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. This contention of the tenants found favour with the trial court. The suits for eviction were therefore, dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, while passing a decree for arrears of rent The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits
( 3 ) THE contention of the landlord is that under section 32 (b) of the Act, the building in the occupation of the tenants is one which is constructed after after the 26th of August, 1957. Section 32 (b) of the Act enacts that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any building constructed on or after the 26th August. 1957.
( 4 ) THE question therefore it: Can portions of the occupation of the defendants which was reconstructed in 1964 be said to be a construction made after the 26th August, 1957 ? If It is such a construction undoubtedly Act ( XV of i960) has no application and the Civil court would have jurisdiction to decree the suits of the landlord for eviction and possession.
( 5 ) THE answer to the question depends upon the meaning ascribable to the words any building constructed in section 32 (b) of the Act. The words used in section 32 (b) are any
