SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 165

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Mirza Basharath Ali Khan
Versus
P. Jagannath Rao
Civil Revision Petition No. 2233 of 2006
Decided on : 28-02-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:B. Narayana Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Mallareddy, Advocate.

Headnote:A) A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960:- Where prima facie dispute exists with regard to the title of the landlord, Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the title and proceeed with the eviction petition and till the title is cleared by competent court, the tenant can deposit the rent in the court of rent controller. (Para 22)

       B) A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Section 2 (vi):- An agent, trustee, exector, administrator, receiver or guardian comes within definition and hence person demanding the rent comes within the purview of definition of landlord, it would be sufficient for the court to proceed under the Act and the court is not competent in that case to proceed with the title in the land. (Para 23)

Judgment :

This revision petition arises out of the order dated 03.11.2005 passed in R.A. No.111 of 2001 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as appellate authority), whereby and whereunder the learned appellate authority reversed the eviction order passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No.776 of 1995, dated 30.12.2000, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner herein, for evicting the respondent herein was allowed.

The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this revision as could be gathered from the pleadings and evidence of the parties are as follows.

The petition schedule premises originally belonged to Meherunnisa Begum, the mother of the petitioner. She made an oral gift in favour of the petitioner on 23.05.1966. The same is reflected in the assessment order (Ex.A1) of Meherunnisa Begum passed by the assessing authority for the year 1967-68 on 06.12.1967. Gift tax of Rs.3911/-was also paid by her on 04.09.1968 under challan Ex.A2. Special notice of house tax, dated 03.12.1968, under Ex.A11 was issued by the MCH in the name of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property and the petitioner sent a reply to the said special notice on 03.10.1969 under Ex.A12.

The respondent has taken the petition schedule premises on lease under a registered rental agreement dated 19.08.1966. This rental agreement was executed by the husband of Meherunnisa Begum namely Mirza Ali Hussain Khan, representing Meherunnisa Begum, in favour of the respondent, whereunder the premises was leased out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The father of the petitioner continued to collect rents from the respondent during his life time and he died on 23.12.1976. It appears that as Meherunnisa Begum had been suffering from Lunacy, the petitioner herein filed O.P. No.505 of 1977 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against all his brothers and sisters seeking to appoint him as guardian of his mother Meherunnisa Begum, and the said petition was allowed on 31.01.1979 (Ex.B3) and the petitioner was appointed as guardian of Meherunnisa Begum.

Then the petitioner filed O.S. No.3035 of 1979 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property. However, the said suit was dismissed on 17.08.1982 (Ex.B4) and no appeal was filed against the said judgment.

Alleging that the petitioner herein refused to receive the rents on behalf of his mother, the respondent filed RC No.330 of 1985 against Meherunnisa Begum represented by her guardian, the petitioner herein under Section 9(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking permission to deposit the rents into Court. Meherunnisa Begum, represented by her guardian the petitioner, filed a counter under Ex.A5 on 01.07.1986 stating that she is not the owner of the petition schedule property and that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property. However, R.C. No.330 of 1985 was dismissed for default on 05.04.1989. Then, the respondent issued a notice dated 19.02.1989 (Ex.A6) to Meherunnisa Begum to receive the arrears of rents for the period commencing from August 1985 to December 1989 and enclosed a cheque for Rs.7950/- for the arrears of rent for the said period. Meherunnisa Begum through her guardian sent a reply notice dated 09.01.1990 under Ex.A7 and categorically stated that she has gifted the petition schedule property to the petitioner and that the petitioner is the owner of the said property and that she has no right, title or interest in the said property and accordingly the cheque sent by the respondent was returned to him.

Then, on 19.03.1990, the respondent filed R.C. No.166 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against Meherunnisa Begum through her guardian the petitioner, u














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top