GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN Vs. L BHASKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner is the tenant. He has questioned the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, R.A. No. 174 of 1993) confirming the order passed in R.C. No. 345/89. By an order dated 29-2-1993 in R.C. 345/89, the learned Rent Controller closed the R.C. in view of the order passed on the same day in LA. 24/93 allowing the application of the landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act. The petitioner-tenant was directed, to vacate the premises within two months. '

(2.) The main Rent Control case -- R.C. 345/89 was filed for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent and also on the ground that the premises was required for personal occupation of the landlord. Along with the main petition, the landlord also filed an application under Section 11 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 35,000.00. In the mam R.C. as well as in the application filed under Section 11, it was alleged that the tenant failed to pay the rent from 1-9-1979 onwards, hence, the landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy and filed a suit -- O.S. No. 1187/81 (on the file of the TI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court) for eviction and arrears of rent and damages, that an ex parte decree was granted, that on appeal, in CCCA No. 144/82, the High Court while confirming the decree as to payment of arrears of rent, set aside the decree with regard to eviction on the ground that the building was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, that the tenant during the pendency of the appeal paid a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 to satisfy the decree passed in O.S. 1187/81 and that after adjusting the said amount, still an amount of Rs. 35,000.00 was due towards arrears of rent by the date of filing the petition. In reply of the application filed under Section 11, the petitioner stated that he ceased to be a tenant with effect from the date of agreement of sale dated 5-8-1979 entered into by his son with the landlord and that his son was put in possession of the premises pursuant to the said agreement of sale. He admitted that the suit filed by the petitioner's son for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale was dismissed but maintained that an appeal is pending in this Court. The Rent Controller inter alia relied upon the decree passed in O.S. No. 1187/ 81 and the judgment of this Court in CCA No. 114/82 confirming the decree partly with regard to the arrears of rent and also the judgment in O.S. 509/85 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner's son for specific performance of sale and allowed the application, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 35,000.00within 15 days from the date of the order i.e., 12-4-1991, failing which, it was stated in the order that the order under Section 11(4) would follow. Against this order, an appeal --R.C.No. 121/91 was filed : The appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) by a judgment dated 1-8-1991. Pending the appeal, it appears there was an order suspending the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller in I.A. No, 430/89. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Authority directed the petitioner (appellant therein) Co pay on or before 1-9-1991 the accumulated arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 47,500.00, failing which, it was directed that the Rent Controller shall pass orders under Section 11 (4). The petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent by the stipulated date. But he filed an application for stay on 27-8-1991 on the ground that he, intended to file a revision in the High, Court. The Appellate Court stayed its own order and extended the same from time to time up to 22-10-1991. By that date, the petitioner filed a revision in this Court under Section 22 of the Act. This Court by an order dated 29-10-1991, suspended the judgment in R.A. 121/91 on condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 within, two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner accordingly furnished bank guarantee and availed of the benefit of the stay order, pending the revision petition -- CRP No. 2987/91. The revision petition was dismissed on 23-12-1992. This Court held that the plea of agreement of sale was unbelievable, that such a plea was raised to avoid eviction, that the learned Rent controller was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant continued and that there was no bona fides in the claim set up by the petitioner-tenant. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it was observed as follows :

(3.) It may be noted that this Court while dismissing the C.R.P. did not grant/extent the time for deposit of the arrears of rent required to be deposited in the order of the Rent Controller. However, it appears that the petitioner deposited the amount on the same day on which the C.R.P. was disposed of.