KANIGALUPULA SUBBAMMA Vs. JANGALA VENKATA RAMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the appellate authority dated 1st November, 1961, which upheld the order of the Rent Controller, dated 26th November, 1960. The petitioner is a tenant of a residential house situated in Vijayawada and the respondent is her landlady. The latter applied for the eviction of the former under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act ("hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 9th August, 1960, mainly on the grounds that the tenant had run into arrears of rent and that besides the house was required for her own personal use. The tenant in compliance with the order of the Rent Controller passed later on, readily deposited all the arrears of rent upto the date of application on 15th September, 1960. That being done, the landlady came with a further application under section 11 on gth November, 1960, alleging that since the tenant had not paid or tendered the rent for the months of September and October, she was not entitled to contest the application for her eviction before the Rent Controller. On 12th November, 1960, the date fixed for counter, the tenant offered to pay the arrears of rent but the landlady did not accept the same. Notwithstanding that the tenant was ready with the money and willing to pay the same on the spot, the Rent Controller, purporting to act under sub-section (4) of section 11, directed eviction of the tenant on the ground that the rent was not paid during the very months for which it was due. This order was upheld by the appellate authority as well. The legality, propriety and correctness of this order has now been called in question in this Court.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the order passed is not only against the letter and spirit of section 11, but wholly inconsistent with the basic principles of law and justice. Sub-clause (1) of section 11 of course provides that a tenant is not entitled to contest the application before the Controller or to prefer an appeal under section 20 unless he paid to the landlord or deposited with the Controller or Appellate Authority all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceeding before the Controller or the appellate authority. Thus payment to the landlord of not only arrears of rent as on the date of application but also of the rent that may become due from time to time during the course of proceedings or deposit of the same with the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is a condition precedent to entitle the tenant to contest the application made under section 10 of the Act. Then sub-clause (2) of section 11 provides for the manner in which such deposit has to be made. It, in terms, leaves the procedure for the same to the rule-making authority to lay down and enjoins due compliance with it. It says that the deposit of rent under sub-clause (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. 'Prescribed' has been defined in section 2 (vii) thus : "prescribed " means " prescribed by rules made under this Act ; " So then, if the deposit is made in accordance with the rules prescribed under the Act, it will be as good and effective as payment to the landlord himself; and the tenant will incur no procedural disability in resisting the petition. Sub-section (5) provides how the amount so deposited may be withdrawn. There again the procedure to be followed is the one prescribed by the rules. There may be cases of dispute as to the rent, be it in relation to its rate or quantum or the like. For such cases, sub-clause (3) provides that the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shah on application made to him either by the tenant or by the landlord and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. Then comes the crucial provision. It says that if the Controller or appellate authority, after such enquiry, directs payment within any reasonable period and the tenant fails to pay or deposit the same within the required period, and without any sufficient cause, the Controller or Appellate Authority as enjoined by sub-clause (4) of section 11 shall stop all further proceedings and make an order in favour of the landlord directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. This provision gives effect to the declaration in sub-clause (1) and is concerned with the provisions in sub-clauses (2) and (3) as well. It may thus be seen that section 11 is a self-contained provision. While it purports to set limitation on the free exercise of-right of defence of appeal it lays down at the same time the conditions and the manner in which this valuable right can thus be circumscribed. In case the payment of rent is not made to the landlord, the tenant has to make deposit of all the rents due as prescribed by the rule. Sub-clause 6 of rule 5 which is the only relevant rule in this behalf provided in the Rules framed under the Act (Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)'.Control Rules, 1961) reads thus :

(3.) It is obvious from the language of the rule that it contemplates specification by the Controller of the time within which the deposit is to be made. The time that he should give must be reasonable and should not exceed 15 days. It follows, therefore, that the tenant cannot incur disability warranted by section 11 unless he fails to comply with the order directing him to pay 'within specified time.