Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
Bhagvatula Pullayya - Appellant
Versus
M.Anandam Chetti - Respondent
Decided On : 10-23-70
EVICTION - GROUNDS - NOTICE TO QUIT - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR EVICTION - APPEAL BY LANDLORD - TENANT'S RIGHT TO SUSTAIN ORDER ON MERITS - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 41, RULE 22, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction of his tenant under the provisions of Sections 10(2)(I), 10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a), and 10(3)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Act 15 of 1960. The Rent Controller held every ground in favor of the landlord but dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to the absence of a prior notice to quit. The landlord appealed, and the appellate authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. The tenant challenged the appellate authority's order, arguing that he had the right to sustain the Rent Controller's order on merits before the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenant had the right to sustain the Rent Controller's order on merits before the appellate authority, both on general principles and on the application of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code. The court found that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, were not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act and were, therefore, applicable to proceedings before the appellate authority under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant had the right to sustain the Rent Controller's order on merits before the appellate authority? 2. Whether the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, were applicable to proceedings before the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Seetaram v. Ramabai, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 221, which held that a party who has an order in its favor is entitled to show that the order is justified on some ground which was decided against it in the court below. 2. The court also relied on the decision in Hari Kishan Singh v. B. Narayana, (1969) 2 APLJ 290, which held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would be applied as far as possible to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, where adequate provision is not made in the Act or in rules and provided that the provisions sought to be applied are not inconsistent with any express provision of the Act or with the scheme and purposes of the enactment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, and remanded the matter for a fresh disposal in light of the court's findings.
( 1 ) THE respondent is the landlord of premises bearing door No. 327 in Gandhi Road, Tirupathi. He filed a petition for eviction of his tenant, the petitioner herein. under the provisions of Sections 10 92) (I), 10 (2) (ii), 10 (3) (a) and 10 (3) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Act 15 of 1960. He claimed to be put in possession on the several grounds mentioned in those provisions. Every one of the grounds raised by the landlord was contested by the tenant, who, in addition, claimed that the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed as no maintenance as he had not been given any notice able as he had not been given any notice to quit in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing of the petitioner for eviction. The Rent Controller held every one of the grounds on which the petition for eviction was based in favour of the landlord but nonetheless dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the ground that there was no prior notice to quit. The Rent Controller did not , however, award any costs but stated no reasons for not awarding costs. The landlord preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. Following a judgment of a Division Bench of this court, the appellate authority held that prior notice to quite was not necessary, The petitioner-tenant who was the respondent before the appellate authority, wanted to sustain the order of dismissal by the Rent Controller on merits, that is, on grounds which had been decided against him by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority did not permit him to do so on the ground that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the adverse findings given by the Rent Controller, he should have preferred an appeal and in the absence of such an appeal he could not be allowed to question the finding in the appeal preferred by the opposite party. The appellate authority, therefore, allowed the appeal and order eviction.
( 2 ) IN this revision, Sri A. V. Krishanrao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that both on general principles and on the application of O. 41, Rs. 22, the petitioner had the right to seek to sustain the order of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority on points decided against him by the Rent Controller. He relied on the decisions in Seetaram v. Ramabai, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 221 and Hari Kishan Singh v B. Narayana. (1969) 2 APLJ 290.
( 3 ) ON the other hand Sri S. V. K. S. Rangaswami Iyengar, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the finding of the Rent Controller on each of the grounds raised in the petition for eviction was by itself an order against which the petitioner could have preferred an appeal; at any rate, the petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the refusal to award him costs. The failure of the petitioner to prefer an appeal made the findings final. The findings would operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceedings and the correctness of the findings could not be canvassed in an appeal preferred by the opposite party in the same proceeding. The learned counsel relied on the decisions in In re Bhogireddi Nagaraju, (1969) 1 APLJ 157 and Bansilal Patwa v. Lakshminarayan. (1969) 1 APLJ 408. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act which are relevant for the purposes of this case are Sections 10, 20 and 21. Under Section 10 (1) of the Act a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10, 12 and 13. Under S. 10 (2) a landlord seeking to evict a tenant is enabled to apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf on any of the grounds mentioned in the several clauses of that sub-section. It the Controller is satisfied that any of the grounds exist. he shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. If the Controller is not satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application. Secti
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
