G KHANDOBA POTANNA Vs. BALAKONDA GANGADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for eviction of the defendant from Mulgi No. 1-5-41, in Armoor town and for recovery of compensation for use and occupation of the said Mulgi by the defendant, at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month.

(2.) The plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, had constructed Mulgis in the open space in front of his house in the year 1965 and leased out one of the Mulgis to the defendant. The house was constructed prior to 1957. After the expiry of the lease period on 15-11-71, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 5-10-71 to vacate the building, to which the defendant gave a reply on 21-10-11, refusing to vacate. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed 0 P No. 12 of 1971 under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the tenant. According to him, he moved the Rent Controller under wrong advice. The Rent Control application was dismissed on merits holding that the tenant is not liable to be evicted. He preferred Rent Appeal No. 2 of 1972 against the order of the Rent Controller and later withdrew the same, on the ground that the Rent Control Act has no application and only a suit would lie, as the leased premises was constructed subsequent to 1957. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 3-5-1973 after the Rent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. As the defendant refused to vacate, he filed the suit out of which the second appeal arises, for eviction and damages for use and occupation. The defendant resisted the suit contending, inter alia, that the suit Mulgi comprises of two rooms bearing common Municipal No. 1-3-161, that the rear room is a part of the house constructed long prior to 1957, that the new room was constructed on the existing platform and pillars in the year 1965 and that it is only an extension of the old building. Thus, according to the defendant, the tenanted premises consisted of two rooms, one in front of the other. The rear room was a part of the residential house constructed about 40 or 45 years ago and the front room was constructed in the' year 1965 on the walls and the platform existing prior thereto. The defendant therefore contended that the suit is not maintainable as the leased premises was constructed prior to 1957 and the building is not exempt from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The defendant a|so contended that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not proper. On these pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as six issues, out of which the following are relevant:

(3.) Mr. K.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the suit is not maintainable in as much as the provisions of the Rent Control Act would apply, is not sustainable. It is submitted that the leased premises is a premises constructed in the yea'' 1965 and hence the building is not covered by the provisions of the Rent Control Act as per Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Section 32 reads thus: "The provisions of this Act shall not apply - (a) ... (b) to any building constructed on or after 26th August 1957."