J KOTBANDA NAIDU Vs. KANYAKA PARAMESWARI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in CM A. No. 6/89 dt:12-11-90 affirming the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor in IA.No. 65/87 in RCC. No. 24/86. The relevant facts are as follows :-

(2.) The respondent-temple tiled eviction petition RCC. No. 24/86 for evicting the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises on certain grounds which are not necessary to mention for the disposal of this revision. The said R.C.C. was resisted by the tenant. Pending the main petition for eviction 1A. No. 65/87 was filed by "the respondent landlord under Section 11 (4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of fail rent of amount of Rs. 175/- per month with effect from 1-12-78 till the date of filing of the application. The allegations made in support of the application were that the tenant was continuing in the premises by sufference at the rate of rent of Rs. 175/- per month and the tenant has to pay rent at that rate and he committed default of payment of rent with effect from 1-12-78 and therefore sought for a direction to the tenant to pay Rs. 175/- per month from 1-12-78 and continue to pay and in default he should be directed to vacate the petition schedule premises.

(3.) The tenant-petitioner herein resisted the application on the ground that originally the landlord filed O.A. No. 38/79 before the Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool against him for eviction, and he deposited rents from 1-12-78 to the credit of O.A. No, 38/79 and also obtained receipts to that effect. His contention was that the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month and not Rs. 175/- per month. He also contended that a suit was filed by the landlord in O.S. No. 1080/80 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Chittoor for damages on the ground that the tenant refused to vacate the premises in spite of quit notice and the said suit was decreed on merits wherein the learned Judge fixed Rs. 175/- p.m. as the reasonable amount of damages for use and occupation and therefore the said rate cannot be treated as agreed rent which can only be directed to be deposited under Section 11 (4) of the Act and therefore the application for deposit of Rs. 175/- p.m. as the agreed rent is unsustainable. The tenant also raised several other pleas which need not be referred to for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition. All such pleas as well as the pleas of the landlord will be decided by the rent controller while disposing of the R.C.C. on merits in accordance with law.