DHINTAPALLE ACHAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .These are the three proceedings, initiated, one and all, by Chintapalli Achaiah, a tenant of the building known as Brindavan bearing Municipal No. 658 situate at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. Pilleti Gopala Krishna Reddy, respondent in only two of these proceedings (G.R.P. and G.M.P.) is the owner of the said building. The petitioner was inducted into passession by the owner on executing an agreement of lease dated 11th January, 1961. The avowed purpose of taking the building on lease was to run a boarding and lodging house therein under the name and style of Hotel Brindavan for a stipulated period. The case of the petitioner is that the lease, as originally agreed upon, was for a period of five years, that as per supplementary agreement dated 14th February, 1962, the period of lease was curtail d to 3 years with option of renewing the lease and that there was also an oral agreement that the lease entered into shall be renewed from time to time. The case of the respondent on the other hand seems to be that the lease was only for a period of 2 years. At the time when the agreement was entered into, the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Eviction and Rent) Control Act (XV of 1960) which superseded the old Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (XX of 1954) had already come into force section 32. (b) of the said Act had exempted the buildings constructed after the 26th August, 1957 from the operation of that Act. As the owner desired that the petitioner should vacate the building at the close of the lease period, the latter, on 31st October, 1963, which according to the landlord was the last day of the stipulated period of the lease, filed O.S. No. 19 of 1963 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad for declaration that notwithstanding section 32 (b) which is void, he as a tenant is entitled to the benefit of Act (XV of 1960). The landlord, on the following day i.e., 1st November, 1963, instituted O.S. No. 20 of 1963 for eviction of the tenant-petitioner. An application for appointment of a Receiver was also filed.

(2.) The parties came to an agreement that the suits may be disposed of by January, 1964 and the application for appointment of Receiver may lie over till that time. As a result thereof the Court below took up the main suits for trial. Then the petitioner came with an application I.A. No. 91 of 1964, praying that as the suits raised substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the question involved may be referred to the High Court, for decision under proviso to section 113, Civil Procedure Code. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court rejected this request . Against that order, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 1679 of 1964 and also an independent application C.M.P. No. 4906 of 1964 under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution. The matter was heard by a bench of this Court which held on 5th January, 1965 that section 32 (b) was valid and good, that it did not offend in any manner Article 14 or any other Article of the Constitution and that the Act did not apply to buildings constructed after 26th August, 1957 (See Chitnapali Achaiah v. P. Gopala Krishna Reddy, 1966 A.P. 51. Having decided thus this Court directed the disposal of the suits as early as possible. The petitioner applied in vain for leave (S.G.L.P. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1965) to appeal to the Supreme Court. Special -Leave applications 502 and 503 of 1965 filed thereafter in the Supreme Court were also rejected on 23rd March, 1965 as withdrawn. In all these proceedings, it may be noted the petitioner relied on the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act (XV of 1960) and sought benefit thereunder questioning however only the validity of the exemption granted under section 32 (V) to buildings constructed on or after 26th August, 1957.

(3.) It may also be noted that some time after the said suits were filed, the petitioner instituedR.C.No.23-FR-1964 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for fixation of rent for the suit house under the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Eviction and Rent) Control Act (XV of 1960) .The Rent Controller held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the case as it is a new building within the meaning of section 32 (b). The petitioner preferred an appeal from that order before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 123 of 1964. The said appeal was also dismissed on the same ground. A Civil Revision Petition filed in the High Court met with the same fate. When his plea with regard to section 32 (b) thus failed in all the Courts and the suits were taken up for trial, the petitioner came with another application 1580 of 1965 under section 113 Civil Procedue Code to refer the case to the High Court on the ground that the entire Act XV of 1960 is void, for as a bill affecting the interests of Telangana Region in a matter which is a scheduled matter within the meaning of the President's Order, known as the A.P. Regional Committee's Order of 1958 madeunder Article 371 of the Constitution of India, it ought to have been referred to the Telangana Regional Committee for consideration and report on its introduction in the Assembly or at any rate before it was passed by it. It was urged that by reason of the said infirmity the old Hyderabad Act (i.e.) Act XX ot 1954 stands unrepealed and is still law in force. We may set out here this plea bearing on the invalidity of Act XV of 1960 in somewhat greater detail as it happens to be the only vital point for the tenability of the claim of the petitioner. Article 371 (1) of the Constitution of India contemplates, the President's Order providing for, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution (1) the constitution and functions of Regional Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State, (2) for the modification of both in the rules of the business of the. Government and of the procedure in the legislative Assembly and also (3) for any special responsibility of the Governor for securing the proper functioning of the Regional Committee.