C ACHIAH Vs. P GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chintapalle Achaiah is the petitioner in these three petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 14th October, 1966, we pronounced a common judgment dismissing the petition in each of three main proceedings. The petitioner felt aggrieved with the order of dismissal and filed these petitions against each of them. S.C.L.P. No. 94 of 1966 is filed against the judgment so far as it related to C.M.P.No. 13247 of 1965, and C.M.P. No. 10504 of 1966 is for stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 44 of 1965, on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending the disposal of the above S.C.L.P. C.M.P. No. 10505 of 1966 is for stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 41 of 1965 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, pending the disposal of S.C.L.P. No. 94 of 1966. S.C.L.P. No. 95 of 1966 is filed against the judgment so far as it related to C.R.P. No. 221 of 1966. S.C.L.P. No. 96 of 1966 is filed against the judgment so far as it related to W.P. No. 1360 of 1965. C.M.P. No. 10503 of 1966 is to consolidate all the three leave petitions, S.C, L.P. Nos. 94 to 96 of 1966 for the purpose of security deposit for costs and printing. The sole respondent in each of these petitions and in the main proceedings is P. Gopalakrishna Reddy, whom we shall refer to for convenience hereafter in this order as landlord. Similarly, we shall refer to for convenience the petitioner chintapalli Achaiah, as tenant. The relevant facts are as follows :

(2.) The Landlord is the owner of premises known as Brindavan Hotel (hereafter referred to for convenience as the case premises) situated in Hyderabad within its Municipal Limits. He leased it under a lease deed dated 11th January, 1961 for a period of two years according to him, to the tenant. At that time, the Andhra Pradesh Lease, Eviction and Rent Control Act (XV of 1960) (hereafter referred to as the new Act) was in force. Prior to it, the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (XX of 1954) (hereafter referred to for convenience as the old Act) was in force. Section 32 (b) of the new Act exempted from the operation of that Act buildings which had been constructed after 26th August, 1957. It is beyond dispute that the case premises was constructed after that date (26th August, 1957). If that provision of law was valid, the case premises would not be affected by the new Act. The landlord desired that the tenant should vacate the building at the end of the lease period but the tenant desired the contrary. So, the tenant filed a suit (O.S. No. 19 of 1963) in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court on 31st October, 1963 for a declaration that, notwithstanding section 32 (b) of the New Act which was void, he as a tenant was entitled to the benefit of the new Act (XV of I960). On 1st November, 1963, the landlord filed O.S. No. 20 of 1963, in the same Court for eviction of the tenant alleging that the lease had expired. Ultimately, O.S. No. 19 of 1963, became O.S. No. 44 of 1965 and O.S. No. 20 of 1963 became O.S. No. 41 of 1965, on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. On the pleadings, various issues were framed ; one of them was as to whether section 32 (b)of the new Act was unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative in view Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The tenant filed I.A. No. 91 of 1964, contending that the suits raised substantial questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution and praying, on that ground that the question involved may be referred to the High Court for decision under the proviso to section 113 Civil Procedure Code. The learned Additional Chief Judge passed an order rejecting that request. Against that order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No. 1679 of 1964.

(3.) The tenant also filed directly in the High Court C.M.P. No. 4906 of 1964, under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution regarding the validity of section 32 (b). A Bench of this Court heard that G. R.P. and Civil Miscellaneous Petition and passed an order holding that section 32 (b) of the new Act was valid and did not offend in any manner Article 14 or any othef Article of the Constitution and that the new Act did not apply to the buildings constructed after 26th August, 1957. This Court also directed the disposal of the suits as early as possible. The petitioner filed S.G.L.P. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1965, against the judgment for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but they were dismissed. He filed Special Leave Applications Nos. 500 and 502 of 1965, in the Supreme Court and they were rejected on 23rd March, 1965, as withdrawn by the tenant. Upto that stage, the tenant was relying on the new Act for relief except for challenging the validity of exemption granted under section 32 (b) of that Act. Meanwhile, the tenant also instituted R.C. 23-FR-1964 before the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for fixation of rent under the New Act. The Rent Controller refused relief on the ground that he had no jurisdiction as the case premises was a new building covered by section 32 (b). The tenant filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 123 of 1964. It was dismissed on the same ground. The tenant filed a Civil Revision Petition against that order in the High Court which also ended in dismissal. The tenant then got his plaint in O.S. No. 44 of 1965, amended so as to question the validity of the entire new Act on the ground that the new Act related mainly to ' markets' and ' development' which were items mentioned in Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order, 1958 issued by the President of India and that, consequently, the Bill, which ultimately became the new Act, should have been referred to the Telangana Regional Committee before it could be finally passed by the State Legislature and because law and that such mandatory procedure was in fact not followed and that, therefore, the new Act in its entirety was invalid.