UPPALA VEERESAM Vs. ALLADI SAIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal has come before us on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court. Before this reference is answered, it will be pertinent to refer to certain material facts giving rise to the second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit premises. He contended that he had purchased the suit premises from Balde Siva Prasad under a registered sale deed dt. 9-9-1988. The defendant was carrying on cloth business in a portion of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 215/-. Perior thereto, the vendor of the plaintiff had rented out the premises to the defendant. The house was constructed in 1984. The tenancy was determined with effect from 28-2-1990 by a notice. The defendant claimed in his written statement that he was a tenant from 1952 and he was paying rent of Rs. 400/- p.m. till 1984. On a compromise reached between him and Balde Siva Prasad in R.C.No. 254 of 1984, the defendant surrendered the mulgi to B.Siva Prasad and obtained 50% of the floor space occupied earlier and was paying Rs. 215/- p.m. as cent. The building was not constructed in 1984, but it was constr6cted prior to 1957. Some alterations were made by the vendor of the plaintiff on a petition under Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") and the provisions of the Act are applicable to the suit premises and as such notice of eviction issued by the plaintiff was incorrect.

(3.) One of the issues framed by the trial Court was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. During the trial, it came to light that in R.C.No. 254 of 1984 under Section 12 of the Act the tenant was directed to deliver possession of the premises on or before 10-10-1984 and the landlord was directed to complete the construction of the building within two months from the date of eviction of the premises and on completion of the construction, the landlord was directed to put the tenant back into possession of a portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 215/-. These facts are undisputed. Under Section 12 of the Act a tenant is entitled to re-possession of the rented premises after reconstruction and such an order has been passed by the Rent Controller in RC. No. 254 of 1984. Section 12 of the Act lays down, "12. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for reconstruction: