NIMMAGADDA KRISHNA HARI Vs. MANEPALLI MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). C.R.P.No. 3592 of 2000 was filed by the unsuccessful tenants in both the Courts below. The husband of the first petitioner was the tenant in the schedule premises and during the lifetime of the original tenant, certain disputes arose between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant filed O.S.No. 422 of 1990 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada for injunction against the respondent and the same was decreed on 31-3-1994. The tenant also filed R.C.C. No. 98 of 1990 under Section 8 (5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court. The said petition was filed on 6-7-1990 and the same was allowed on 20-6-1991. Subsequent thereto on 5-8-1992, the original tenant died and the first petitioner being the wife and the second petitioner being the daughter were added as the legal representatives in O.S.No. 422 of 1990. Inasmuch as the proceedings in R.C.C.NO. 98 of 1990 were terminated even by 20-6-1991, R.C.C.No. 1 of 1993 was filed under Section 8 (5) of the Act for deposit of rents and the same was allowed on 10-12-1993. During the period from August, 1992 to December, 1992, the tenants could not deposit the rents since they could not obtain challans from the Rent Controller. After R.C.C.No. 1 of 1993 was numbered, they had obtained the challans and deposited the rent and have been continuing to deposit the rents in the said R.C.C. The landlord originally filed R.C.C.No. 141 of 1992 which was renumbered as R.C.C.No. 136 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada on the ground of wilful default during the period from August, 1992 to December, 1992 and the said R.C.C. was allowed on 16-9-1997 and aggrieved by the same, the tenants preferred RC C.M.A. No.88 of 1997 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the same was dismissed on 11-7-2000 confirming the orders passed in R.C.C.No. 136 of 1996 and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. was filed by the tenants. The appellate Court while discussing the point for consideration i.e. whether there is default in payment of rent from August, 1992 to December, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month, if so, that default can be treated as wilful default, confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority has mainly arrived at the conclusion that the default will amount to wilful default on non-compliance of the procedure under different sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act. In view of the conflicting opinions, the learned Judge had already referred a similar question to be decided by a Division Bench in C.R.P. No. 3835 of 2000. The question referred to the Division Bench by P.S. Narayana. J. is as follows: Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Act are mandatory or directory and if so, whether the non-following of the procedure under Section 8 (2), (3) and (4) of the Act automatically enures to the benefit of the landlord to substantiate the ground of wilful default?

(2.) P.S. Narayana, J. after noticing the divergent decisions - one view holding that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act are only directory and not mandatory and the other view holding that the procedure contemplated by Section 8 was mandatory, observed that he was inclined to refer the matter to a Division Bench by framing the question and directed the Office to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate orders in this regard.

(3.) The question referred by the learned Judge reads as follows: Whether the procedure specified under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is mandatory as held in C. Hanumantha Rao v. M. Prem Sudhakar Rao (1998) (1) ALT 754) or it is only directory as observed in Satyanarayana v. Narasimloo (1985 (2) ALT 169), M. Venkateswara Rao v. Smt. K.V. Subbamma (1978 (1) ALT 503) and Kamala Bai v. E. Rajeswari (1997 (1) ALT 797).