ARJUN PRASAD Vs. TAYABA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in S.C.S.No. 111 of 1968 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad against whom a decree for recovery of arrears of rent payable by him under an agreement of lease of a building dated 19-11-1962, was passed has filed this Revision Petition. The only point urged at the hearing of the revision petition arid that arises for consideration is that the lease being in contravention of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is void and therefore the plaintiff's claim of arrears of rent was not cognizable by court of small causes.

(2.) It is not disputed before me that the building in question which forms the subject matter of the Iease in question is one to which the provisions of the Act are applicable, ft is also not disputed that the lease is in contravention of section 3 of the Act.

(3.) A Bench of this courr in Gurram Eswaraiah, v. Mahtndrappa Khani (f) 1969(2) A.P. Law Journal, 66 has held that a contract in contravention of section 3 of the Act is void. Both the learned counsel proceeded to argue the matter on the basis that the lease of the building is void.