ISHWARLAL Vs. KURSHEED BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act. The petitioner before me claims to be the owner of the house bearing No. 2-3-61. He claimed to have purchased the property from one Ramchanderji under a registered deed of sale dated 19th September, 1962. He also claimed that the defendant executed Exhibit C-1 a rent deed agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs. 30 The deed of sale referred to above is said to be of the same date.

(2.) The proceeding that was initiated by the petitioner before the Rent Controller was one for eviction of the defendant who according to him was his tenant, as evidenced by the rent deed, Exhibit C-1 on the ground that the defendant wilfully defaulted in paying the rent stipulated in Exhibit C-1. The application for eviction was filed on 25th January, 1964. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house' She also denied that she was the tenant. She claimed that the property belonged to her family from the time of her ancestors. She also asserted that she never paid any rent to the petitioner. Since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties she pleaded that the petition for eviction was pending for eleven months ; the petitioner before me filed on 29th December, 1964 I.A. No. 151 of 1965 under section 11 of the Act for an order directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 840 which amount, according to the petitioner was the arrear of rent due at that time. It was then that the petitioner filed Exhibit C-1 for the first time before the Rent Controller. It was not filed along with the petition for eviction. Then the Rent Controller by his Order, dated 16th April, 1965 directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 840 towards the rent from October, 1962 to February, 1965 within 15 days from the date of that Order, failing which all further proceedings would be stayed and orders under section 11 (4) of the Act would follow. The respondent was also directed to deposit further rents as and when they became due. The order proceeds to state that it was passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and without affecting their rights to lead the evidence in the main case. The further direction was that the amount so deposited, will not be paid to any party, and that it will be paid to the deserving party after the disposal of the main case. The respondent failed to make the deposit within 15 days from the date of that order. , An application was made before the Rent Controller, to extend the time for making the deposit and time was extended. But still no deposit was made. Then on 15th May, 1965 the Rent Controller, passed an order directing the respondent to put the petitioner (land-lord) in vacant possession of the suit premises within 30 days from the date of that order, and also directed that all further proceeding be stayed. Against this order of eviction the respondent filed an appeal before the Court of the Chief Judge, Small Causes at Hyderabad. The appeal was numbered as Rent Appeal No. 129/3/1965. It appears, pending that appeal, an application for stay of eviction was made and stay of eviction was ordered on condition of the appellant depositing of the amount of Rs. 840. The said amount was not deposited within the time allowed. Therefore, the order of stay was vacated, and the petitioner before me was able to evict the respondent before me, and obtained possession of the suit premises. Subsequently the appeal was heard by the Chief Judge, Court of City Small Causes, who by his judgment dated 8th April, 1966, allowed the appeal, and directed the Rent Controller to enquire into the main petition regularly.

(3.) In the view of the learned Judge in a case where the title of the petitioner in the eviction petition to the suit premises, and the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant are denied by the respondent no order under section 11 of the Act could be passed either directing the alleged tenant to deposit any rent or to stay the proceedings in default of such deposit, or to order eviction of the tenant or give a direction that the landlord be put in possession of the premises.