N RAJARAO Vs. A SANKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The respondent in these revision petitions applied, on behalf of his undivided family, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises situate at Railway New Colony, Waltair, under Section 10 of Act, 15 of 1960, on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rents commencing from May, 1966. The Rent Controller upheld the prayer for eviction because he was of opinion that it was a case of wilful and continued default. From the order of the Rent Controller dt. 27 tb September, 1 967 an appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appeal was duly taken on file and registered as C. M.A. No. 20 of 1967. The landlord filed an application, I, A. Noi 78 of 1968, under Section 11 of the Act 15 of 1960 (referred to herein as the Act), that the proceedings in C. M. A. No. 20 of 1967 should be terminated because of the default of the tenant. He also prayed for the delivery of the demised premises to him under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The application was allowed and possession of the premises was directed to be given to the landlordt Consequent on the order on T. A. No, 78 of 1968. the C. M, A. No. 20/67 was rejected The two revision petitions are presented against the orders in I. A. No. 78 of 1968 and in the main appeal.

(2.) The substantial point for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the Subordinate Judge, did not act in confirmity with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In support of these revision petitions, a two-fold contention is urged by Sri Mangachary. Firstly, he submits that there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 11 and where there is a dispute decision under sub-section(3) is a condition precedent for exercising the power under sub-section(4). Sub-Section (4) of section 11 reads :

(3.) It is urged that the Court has no power to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building until the dispute is decided and the amount that is payable is determined, Secondly he submits that the Court was bound to grant some reasonable time for payment and it was not competent to apply the provision of Sub-section (4) except after giving a further opportunity to the tenant to make the requi. site deposit.