DODDA RANGARA RAO Vs. R V RAMBHUPAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitioner herein has sought for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent herein, complaining of breach of solemn undertaking furnished by the respondent before this Court, we made it clear to the learned counsel for the parties that it would be in the interest of both the parties to resolve the crux of the controversy and get rid of a long-drawn litigation, rather than indulge in side issues. The response of the learned counsel for the parties has been positive and the gesture shown by them deserves to be appreciated. We have afforded the parties the opportunity of filing affidavits, counter-affidavits and documents. The present order proposes to take care of the principal controversy since punishing for or discharging from contempt would not bring an end to the litigation a viewpoint which the learned counsel for the parties have understood and appreciated.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we would refer to Dodda Rangara Rao, the petitioner herein, as the "landlord" and R. V. Rambhupal Prasad, the alleged contemnor, as the "tenant". The subject-matter of these proceedings is the premises bearing number D. No. 12-25-102 situated in New Ward No. 8/235, Kothapet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The premises are a cinema hall designed for the purpose of exhibiting drama or cinema. Admittedly, the landlord is the owner of the premises.

(3.) Sometime in the year 1992, the landlord initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant under Section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960. The Rent Controller, Guntur vide order dated 24-6-1996 upheld the landlord's claim for eviction and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession over the premises to the landlord. Out of the several averments made in the plaint, two of them are worth being referred to. The first averment is that in the year 1943 the landlord had let out the premises along with the cine equipment and furniture as mentioned in schedule 'b' attached to the petition to late R. V. Satyanarayana Prasad, the senior paternal uncle of the tenant and possession of the building, equipment and furniture was delivered to the then lessee in the year 1943 itself. The initial lease was oral but subsequently a lease in writing was executed on 16-7-1944. There were other deeds also executed from time to time incorporating the terms and conditions of the lease. The lease was last renewed on 18-4-1950 when the then lessee executed a handwritten letter mentioning the list of articles, details of equipment besides the fixtures taken possession of by him. A rent of Rs 340 per month was fixed for the building (hall) while a sum of Rs 410 was fixed as rent for the equipment, fixtures, etc. referred to in the schedule attached with the petition. The second averment is that though the lessee was the senior paternal uncle of the tenant, however, subsequent to the induction of the then lessee, initially the father of the tenant for some time, and later the tenant himself, began carrying on the business instead of the original lessee. The fact remains that the proceedings for eviction referred to hereinabove were initiated against the "tenant" by treating him as the lessee in the year 1992 i. e. on the date of initiation of the eviction proceedings.