Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, UMAMAHESWARAM
Amritlal N.Shah - Appellant
Versus
Alla Annapurnamma - Respondent
Decided On : 03-12-58
RENT CONTROL ACT - LEASE - CONSTRUCTION - TENANT OF A BUILDING - ESTOPPEL - ABATEMENT OF RENT - DISCHARGE OF RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the plaint scheduled property or in the alternative for payment of the balance of security deposit. The appellant contended that he was entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business and that he had also discharged the arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business, that the discharge pleaded by him was not true, that the appellant was not a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act, and that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was further held that by reason of his conduct and the decision in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, the appellant was estopped from contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the sail.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business? 2. Whether the discharge pleaded by the appellant was true? 3. Whether the appellant was a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act? 4. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 5. Whether the appellant was estopped from contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the sail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business as there was no provision in the lease deed entitling him to such abatement. 2. The Court held that the discharge pleaded by the appellant was not true as the evidence did not support the appellant's claim. 3. The Court held that the appellant was not a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act as the lease in question was a composite lease and the items referred to in the schedule to Exhibit B-20 should be regarded as articles attached to the building or the hall. 4. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Civil Court to entertain a suit by a landlord for recovery of possession from the tenant of a building falling within the definition of the Act. 5. The Court held that the appellant was estopped from contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the sail as he had obtained an order of dismissal of the appeal preferred under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and was therefore not entitled to contend in the suit instituted in the Civil Court that the proper forum was the Rent Controller.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 2 ) THE appellant herein contended that he was entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business and that he had also discharged the arrears of rent. He further pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the provisions of the Act apply.
( 3 ) THE Subordinate Judge held that under the terms of the lease deed he was not entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business. He further found that the discharge pleaded by him was not true. On the construction of the lease, he came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act, and that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was further held that by reason of his conduct and decision in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, the appellant was estopped from contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the sail. The defendant has consequently preferred the appeal,
( 4 ) SRI Chandramouli, the learned advocate for the appellant contended (1) that the Subordinate judge erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint in I. A. No. 793 of 1952 and permitting the plaintiff to base his claim for recovery of possession on a fresh cause of action; (2) that on a true construction of the document of lease, the appellant was a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act; (3) that the Court below erred in helding that the appellant was estopped by reason of his conduct and the decision in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949. Sub Court, Guntur; (4) that the appellant is entitled to abatement of rent as there was stoppage of business for 6 months and odd; and (5) that me discharge pleaded by the appellant was true.
( 5 ) AS stated supra, an application for eviction was filed under S. 7 of the Act on the ground that the appellant herein committed default in the payment of rent. As the appeal C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Guntur was dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Control Act did not apply. The respondent had to institute the suit in the Subordinate Judges Court for the same relief. The suit was instituted on 2-3-1950. Daring the pendency of the suit the lease period had expired and she applied in I. A. No. 793 of 1952 for the amendment of the plaint. By means of the application, she sought to put forward a fresh ground entitling her to recover possession of the plaint scheduled property. As a result of the amendment, the nature of the relationship between the parties is in no way altered. In the first instance she pleaded that by reason of the defendants default to pay the arrear
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
