K CHANDRAKANT NAVARATAN Vs. SHARDA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, arise out of the common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P. No. 2923 of 1997 and C.R.P. No 2843 of 1997 passed on Nov. 13, 1997.

(2.) The respondent is the landlady of mulgies 21-2-1131/8 and 21-2-131/7 situated at Charminar, Hyderabad. The appellants, who are father and son, are tenants of these mulgies. The rent of the first mentioned mulgi was Rs. 250/- per month and that of the second mentioned mulgi was Rs. 300/- per month. On the allegation that the respondent was not receiving the rent, the appellants filed applications under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act). The appellate constested the petition pleading, inter alia, that under rental ageement dated Sept. 1, 1987 (Ex. R -5), the rent of the said mulgies was enhanced to Rs. 1200/- per month. The learned Rent Controller permitted the appellants to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 300/- per month, negativing the plea of the respondent that the rent of the two mulgies was Rs. 1200/-. Dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the respondent filed appeals before the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, the appellate authority under the Act. The learned Chief Judge, having construed the said rental agreement and other materials, directed the appellants to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month. The appellants' revisions before the High Court against the order of the learned Chief Judge were dismissed by the impugned order. The appellants are, therefore, before us in these appeals.

(3.) Inasmuch as the question of quantum of rent and the default, if any, committed by the appellants are subject matters of proceedings under Section 10 of the Act initiated by the respondent, we do not consider, it appropriate in summary proceedings arising under Section 8 of the Act to go into this aspect as eviction proceedings between the parties are pending before the Rent Controller. Suffice it to say that the deposit of rent at the rate determined by both the appellate authority and the High Court, by order under challenge, will not in any way cause prejudice to the rights of the parties as it would be subject to the result of final orders that would be passed by the learned Rent Controller in proceedings under Section 10 of the Act. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned order.