Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU, PARTHASARATHI
Changalal - Appellant
Versus
Narsingh Pershad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-27-71
ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 11 - SUMMARY ENQUIRY - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - FULL BENCH REFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner and contended that the building in question did not belong to the petitioner. The Rent Controller, after examining the sale deed and rental deeds filed by the petitioner, came to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was the landlord and the respondent was his tenant. The Rent Controller directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, remanded the case to the Rent Controller to allow the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the case according to law.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 applies not only to cases of admitted tenancy but also to cases of disputed tenancy. The Rent Controller has jurisdiction to enquire summarily into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and pass orders under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to enquire summarily into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and pass orders under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Full Bench held that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to enquire summarily into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and pass orders under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed. The Full Bench observed that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a jurisdictional fact. Before any valid orders can be passed either by the Rent Controller or by the appellate authority, that jurisdictional fact must exist. According to the proviso to Section 10(1) of the Act, where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court which means the eviction petition is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed. This proviso mentions only two categories of cases - cases of denial of title of the landlord and claiming of a right of permanent tenancy by the tenant. The controller has power to decide that question as a jurisdictional fact. By mere denial of that relationship the proceedings do not become not maintainable and it cannot be said that the Controller no longer has any jurisdiction to go into the matter. He is entitled to decide the disputed fact of the relationship of landlord and tenant as a jurisdictional fact. Therefore, in all cases of denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, it can be gone into by the authorities under the Act and decide it as a jurisdictional fact.
Final Decision: The Full Bench answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, holding that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to enquire summarily into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and pass orders under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed.
( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the order of the Rent Controller, appealed against, was the direction given to the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 758. 00- as arrears of rent as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The contention of the respondent tenant was that the petitioner was not his landlord. But on the landlord filing the sale deed in his favour for the premises concerned and rental agreements alleged to have been executed by the tenant prima facie found that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore he should deposit the arrears as per the provisions of Section 11. This is an order affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties and a mere procedural one, however summary the enquiry had been. Therefore this order is appealable.
( 2 ) THIS leads us to the merits of the order passed in appeal by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. The Chief Judge held that there was no proper enquiry regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and remanded the case to allow the parties to adduce evidence in the case and dispose it of according to law. It is against this that the revision has been filed in this Court. The contention put forward now is that on a petition under Section 11 of the Act, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to enquire into the relationship of landlord and tenant, that on a prima facie finding in a summary enquiry that the respondent is the tenant, direct him to deposit the arrears of rent. This question came to be considered in Hari Rao v. Subba Lakshmamma, 1966-1 Andh WR 122, where the respondent, against whom the petition was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent, contended that he was not a tenant, that the building was his, that in respect of the building a usufructuary mortgage was executed in favour of the petitioner where under he continued to occupy the building executing a rental deed in lieu of interest and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the trial Court had gone into the question and held that there was jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the tenants had wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and directed eviction and on a petition under Section 11 of the Act the tenants were directed to deposit the arrears of rent, the question arose whether, when there was a dispute with regard to the jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant, the Court had no jurisdiction to give direction to the tenants under Section 11, it was held by Ekbote, J. that by insertion of Section 11, the Legislature clearly intended to give protection to the tenants, provided he pays the rent due to the landlord and continued to pay till the disputes are settled and therefore Section 11 applied not only to a case where the tenancy is admitted but also to a case where the tenancy is disputed and a summary enquiry can be made about the relationship before applying Section 11. In a subsequent decision in Ishvarlal v. Kursheed Begum, 1968-1 ALT 110, where also the petition was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default and the respondent denied the plaintiffs title to the house and their relationship of landlord and tenant and the petition under Section 11 of the Act for the deposit of the arrears of rent was ordered and on non-payment the tenant was directed to be evicted under Section 11 (4) of the Act and in appeal the matter was remanded, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application under Section 11 and the relationship of landlord and tenant was raised in revision, held that Section 11 applied to only to cases of admitted tenancy as not only the Section begins with the expression " No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " but also as no provision has been made in Section 11 for a summary enquiry with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant as in the cas
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
