LAWS(APH)-1970-10-10

SEETHA BAI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On October 23, 1970
SEETHA BAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order made in a pending eviction petition filed by a landlord against his tenant under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (herein after referred to as ' the Act') for evicting his tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The building is occupied by the officer of the Additional Director, Commerce and Industries Department of the Government. The rent originally fixed was Rs. 420 per month. But subsequently it was raised to Rs.700 per month. The eviction petition was filed on 18th October, 1965. The petition was resisted by the Government on the ground that there was no wilful default in payment of rent. The claim of the landlord was that by the date of the application the rental was due from 1st March, 1965 to 30th September, 1965, Then the landlord filed an application under section 11 of the Act against the order in which this revision petition has arisen for a direction that the tenant should deposit the rent due. By that time some arrears beyond what was claimed in the eviction petition had already accrued. The Rent Controller passed an order on this application on 1st November, 1966 directing the Government to pay within 15 days the arrears of rent due and posted the application to 16th November, 1966. On that date, an application was filed by the Government to extend the time for payment. The matter came up for hearing on 18th November, 1966 and by his order the Rent Controller granted 15 days time which expired on 3rd December, 1966. As 3rd and 4th December, 1966 were not working days, the matter came up for consideration on 5th December, 1966, on which date the Rent Controller passed an order under section 11(4) of the Act directing the Government to vacate the building within three weeks from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition the Government has deposited sums of Rs. 1,400, Rs. 1,073 and Rs. 1,400 and those amounts had been withdrawn by the landlord on 5th December, 1966. On 7th December, 1966, the Government came forward with a memo, filing a challan saying that they were depositing a sum of Rs. 2,637. But the Rent Controller did not allow it because by then the order of eviction had already been passed by him under section 11 (4) of the Act.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller the Government took the matter in appeal to the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, contending that the Rent Controller ought to have extended time for payment as requested by them on 16th November, 1966. The Chief contention of the Government before the Chief Judge in the appeal is that the tenant being a Government institution withdrawing of the moneys from the Government and paying to the landlord took some time because of procedural delays involved and hence the reason for the delay. The learned Chief Judge accepted this contention by observing that whatever the arrangements the Government might have made for depositing the amount, being an institution it cannot be expected to get the moneys under several heads and to deposit the same precisely in time and he is satisfied that the delay in depositing, i.e., four days after the due date was for "sufficient cause" as provided under section 11(4) of the Act. Accordingly the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, allowing the appeal by granting further time to make the deposit, the landlord has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The main point which was urged before me on behalf of the landlord which was also urged in the appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court is that as provided under sub-clause (6) of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Rent Control Rules the Rent Controller has no competence to grant time for deposit or payment beyond 15 days.