T VENKATESAM Vs. AKULA KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, given on 4th July, 1964. The essential facts in order to appreciate the contention raised before me are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 hereinafter called the Act on various grounds. During the pendency of that petition an order directing eviction of the tenant was passed by the Rent Controller under section 11 (4) of the Act since the tenant had failed to deposit the amount of rent as directed by the Rent Controller. The tenant preferred an appeal against that order. The appeal was however dismissed. The landlord filed an execution petition asking the Rent Controller to put him in possession in pursuance of the order passed under section 11 (4) of the Act. That petition Was resisted by him that the order passed under section 11 (4) is not executable as there is no provision in the Act to execute it. It was however contended by the landlord that the order passed under section 11 (4) Would be deemed to have been passed under section 10 of the Act and therefore the order is executable. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the tenant holding that the order is executable and directed the execution of the order. The tenant dissatisfied with that order carried the matter in appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the view of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) In this revision petition it was contended by Mr. P. Chennakesava Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that section 15 of the Act whicn authorises the execution of orders passed under section 10, 12 or 13 of the Act, does not provide for execution of an order passed under section 11 (4) of the Act. His further contention was that section 10 puts a complete embargo upon the execution of an order passed under section 11 (4) when it says that " a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or sections 12 and 13".

(3.) In order to appreciate the above contention it is necessary to mention that section 10 provides for the eviction of the tenants on various grounds, and an order passed under section 10 of eviction would be an order passed after holding proper enquiry. It is a final order which is capable of being executed under section 15 of the Act. Likewise the orders passed under sections 12 and 13 are also final orders passed after proper enquiry in regard to matters mentioned in those sections. These orders also are capable of being executed in view of the express provision of section 15 of the Act. The position of an order under section 11 however is quite different from the orders passed under abovesaid provisions. Section 11 in order to balance the equities between the landlord and tenant provides for the payment or deposit of arrears as well as rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. It enjoins that no tenant against whom an application for eviction is made under section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application either before the Rent Controller or in appeal against the order of the Rent Controller unless' he has paid to the landlord or deposited the sum of arrears of rent due and continues to pay rent which may subsequently become due until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. That section also provides for the settlement of any dispute in regard to arrears. It is sub-section (4) of that section which is more relevant. According to that subsection if any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as determined, the Controller or the appellate authority shall stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. That section however does not provide as to how the direction given by the Rent Controller or the appellate authority shall be enforced. In view of the omission to mention section 11 (4) in section 15 of the Act and more in view of the language employed in section 10 (1) that no tenant shall be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of section 10, 12 or 13 an objection was raised that any order passed under section 11 (4) cannot be executed, I find it little difficult to equate the order passed under section 11 (4) with the order passed under section 10 of the Act. It would practically amount to legislate if the Court declares that any order passed under section 11 (4) would be deemed to be an order passed under section 10. There is no justification for any such interpretation. While orders under section 10 are the final orders passed after proper enquiry, the order under section 11 (4) is an order passed at an intermediate stage.