G. ANJANEEYA PRASAD Vs. S. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit being O.S No. 521 of 1997 was filed by the sole respondent (hereafter called, the plaintiff) for eviction of the appellants (hereinafter called, the defendants) from the suit schedule premises bearing Gram Panchayat Shop No. 17 -86/B consisting of premises No. 17 -113 situated at Kamala Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District. The said suit was decreed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, (East and North), Ranga Reddy District on 17.4.2000. The first appeal filed by the appellants herein being A.S. No. 57 of 2000 was also dismissed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy on 25.4.2002 directing the appellants to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the said judgment. This second appeal was filed on 15.7.2002. A question was raised before the learned Single Judge, before whom the case was listed, as to whether in spite of the suit property coming within the Municipality during the pendency of the appeal, City Civil Court can pass executable eviction decree though A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Rent Control Act, for brevity) is applicable to the area. By order, dated 18.11.2002, the learned Single Judge, having regard to the conflicting views taken by this Court in R.K. Gupta v. Sirtaj Kara,, 1989 (1) ALT 551 and R. Babu v. H.K.N. Ayyanger : 1999 (4) ALD 450, directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, by order, dated 11.8.2003, having regard to the conflict in the above two decisions and also the other decisions of the Supreme Court, directed the matter to be referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench answered the reference in the positive by order, dated 6.1.2006 and thereafter the matter has set down before this Court for admission.

(2.) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. The plaintiff is the owner of suit premises, by reason of a family settlement, dated 23.10.1993. He filed the suit alleging that the first defendant took the suit premises on lease from the mother of the plaintiff in 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - and the lease commenced on 1.1.1989. The lease was for a period of eleven months. The lease was extended subsequently on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/ -. The plaintiff was also running STD booth in Shop No. 17 -86/4. On 13.3.1997, plaintiffs mother issued a notice to the plaintiff to vacate and handover the shop, in which the plaintiff is running STD booth. Therefore, first defendant was informed about family settlement requesting to vacate the suit premises, in vain. In the meanwhile, plaintiff met with an accident, and taking advantage of the same, the first defendant did not pay the rents from 1.4.1995 amounting to Rs. 19,500/ -. Further, first defendant inducted the second defendant into suit mulgi without knowledge and permission of the plaintiff. He issued quit notice asking the defendants to vacate the suit premises, which he did not do, and therefore the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule premises for delivery of vacant possession, for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 19,500/ - and for mesne profits @ Rs. 2,000/ - per month. The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit. They denied title of the plaintiff. They also denied allegation of 'sub -lease' by first defendant to second defendant stating that the second defendant being the brother is working with the first defendant as a tailor.

(3.) WHILE the appeal was pending, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 548, dated 25.11.2000, notifying the Gaddi Annaram Gram Panchayat (where suit premises was situated) as Municipality with effect from 25.11.2000. Therefore, the defendants raised a plea before the appellate Court to the effect that monthly rent of suit premises being Rs. 750/ -, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellate Court considered this point besides other points and dismissed the appeal holding that Gaddi Annaram Gram Panchayat was notified as Municipality only from 25.11.2000 and that by the date of filing of the suit, the suit premises was located in Gram Panchayat to which the Rent Control Act has no application. The learned Single Judge, before whom the matter was placed for admission, after noticing the factual background, observed as under :