AMIR ALI Vs. MANECK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the common judgment dated 3-9-2002, passed in RA Nos.191, 194 and 192 of 1999 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the common order dated 9-4-1999 in IA No.6 of 1998 in RC No.193 of 1997; IA No.8 of 1998 in RC No.193 of 1997 and dismissal of RC No.193 of 1998, by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, the tenants preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) The factual matrix in a narrow compass is that the petitioners herein filed RC No.193 of 1997 before the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 8(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity the Act) seeking permission to deposit rents for the period from March, 1997 onwards in respect of the premises bearing No.134, present Municipal No.1-6-49, Ground Floor, situated at Park Lane, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Opposite Gandhi Statue, Secunderabad, which was obtained on lease in terms of registered lease deed dated 30-5-1977. Under the said lease, the initial lease period was nine years, after expiry of which, the petitioners, had three options for extension of lease. As per the terms of lease, 10% enhancement is applicable viz., after completion of first nine years period, the mpnthly rent that was initially at Rs.600/- for three months and at Rs.750/- thereafter, shall be Rs.825/- per month from 1-5-1986 to 30-4-1995. Similarly, the monthly rent shall be at Rs.907.50 Ps. For the period from 1-5-1995 to 304-2004 and at Rs.997.50 Ps. from 1-5-2004 to 30-4-2013. It is further stated that after expiry of first nine years, the respondents have been receiving rents at Rs.825/- and thus acted upon the terms. While so, the respondents - landlords filed RC No.207 of 1991 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, bona fide personal requirement, securing alternate accommodation, which is pending. Since the landlords evaded to receive the rents, the petitioners herein filed RC No.270 of 1991 before the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking to deposit the rents from November, 1991 onwards at the rate of Rs.825/- per month, which was dismissed on 22-8-1996, on the premise that the notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was not issued to the respondents - landlords calling upon them to furnish Bank Account particulars. However, on filing the rent petitions, the rents were being deposited for some time and on 5-5-1992, an order to pay the rents to the respondents directly came to be passed. Subsequently, when the landlord evaded receiving rents, the petitioners filed RC No.193 of 1997 under Section 8(5) of the Act from March, 1997 at Rs.907.50 Ps., as second option under the lease deed has come into operation by that time.

(3.) It is the case of the landlords - respondents that in view of dismissal of RC No.270 of 1991 earlier, RC No.193 of 1997 is not maintainable, as it operates as res judicata. They also filed IA Nos.6, 7 and 8 of 1998 to dismiss RC No.193 of 1997, as there is no cause of action; to dismiss the deposit of rent petitions and to hold that the order in RC No.270 of 1991 operates as res judicata, respectively. The learned Rent Controller, while dismissing IA No.7 of 1998 allowed IA Nos.6 and 8 of 1998 and consequently, dismissed the RC No.193 of 1997. Aggrieved of which the tenants preferred appeals being RA Nos.191, 192, and 184 of 1999, respectively and the lower appellate Court, by the impugned common judgment, dismissed all the three appeals, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.