AMEDA NITYANANDAM Vs. GATTU BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller -cum -Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal (for short, lower court), seeking eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule premises which is a residential house with open place bearing municipal door No. 1 -3 -151/3 (old) corresponding to new 1 -4 -91/G and also identified as 1 -3 -353, situated at Shashtrinagar locality of Nirmal Town on the ground that the respondents committed willful default in payment of rents from January, 2003 onwards and they required the premises bona fidely.

(2.) THE said petition was allowed by the lower court on 27.09.2013 directing the respondents to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover the vacant possession to the petitioners within two months from the date of that order. Against the said order, the respondents preferred R.C.A. No. 1 of 2013 before the Appellate Tribunal -cum -Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal (for short, Appellate Tribunal). The respondents also filed Cross Objections against the order passed by the lower court, challenging the finding holding that the respondents cannot be evicted on the ground of denial of title of the petitioners by them in the counter as not bona fide. In the said appeal, the respondents filed an application in I.A. No. 450 of 2013 seeking stay of operation of the execution of the decree dated 27.09.2013 passed in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2010 by the Lower Court, pending disposal of the appeal. The said application was allowed by an order dated 25.11.2013, granting stay of the order passed by the lower court, till the disposal of the appeal. Challenging the grant of said stay without insisting the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal, respondents herein, to deposit the costs as directed by the lower court or imposing conditions, the present Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on a decision of this Court in Tulsi Bai v. Gulab Kanzar Bai, 1978 (1) APLJ 164. In the said case, the landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground of denial of title of the landlord, willful default, sub -lease of the premises without prior permission of the landlord and bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller found all the four grounds in favour of the landlord and accordingly passed orders of eviction. The tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. When the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the office called upon him to deposit the entire arrears of rent upto the date of filing of the appeal before registering the appeal. But, without making such deposit, pending registration of the appeal, the tenant filed an application for granting stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority granted stay on condition of the tenant depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. Challenging the same, the above Revision was filed by the tenant contending that (i) the arrears of rent mentioned in Section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) are the arrears which are legally recoverable only and therefore the liability to deposit arrears of rent cannot extend to arrears for a period beyond three years which are barred by time and (ii) as the petitioner questioned the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent by denying the title of the respondent to the building and that question being a jurisdictional one, it must be decided first by the appellate authority before any direction can be given to the petitioner for depositing the arrears of rent. The Division Bench, by agreeing with the decision of another Division Bench in K. Ramulu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh : 1975 (1) ALT 220, held that the direction of the appellate court to deposit the arrears of rent for the entire period is valid. With regard to point No. 2, the Division Bench agreed with the view in Khursheed Shedur V. Waheed Ali, 1974 (1) APLJ 294 and held the appellate authority can pass an order under Section 11 of the Act on the basis of the findings given by the Rent Controller in the eviction petition. The finding of the Rent Controller holds good till it is set aside by the appellate authority and on the basis of that finding, the appellate authority can direct payment or deposit of the arrears of rent without any need for the appellate authority itself to determine summarily the amount of arrears to be paid or deposited, when there is a dispute about it, as provided under sub -section (3) of Section 11 of the Act.