NARASAIAH Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER RENT CONTROL ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition a barber driven to the wall fights back the mighty State fur upholding rule of law and his possession of a small Malgi. The petitioner barber is in occupation of a premises bearing Municipal No, 3-3-679 situated at Quitbiguda. Hyderabad, as a tenant of one K. Satyanarayana from 1972 onwards. He says he first entered occupation of the building paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The premises comprises of a Malgi and a living room in the rear. The petitioner is running a barber shop in the Malgi and living in the rear room with his family. His claim which he had set at the earliest was that the monthly rent of the building was Rs. 20-/- which was later increased to Rs. 30/- and further increased to Rs. 40/- in the year 1978.

(2.) The authorised officer under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 had passed an order dated 21-3-1984 Which is impugned in the writ petition. The impugned order directs the summary dispossession of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the above said buildings.

(3.) The concept of unauthorised occupation under the Act can apply only when the petitioner in occupying the building violated some mandatory provisions of the Act. As a corollary the above concept of unauthorised occupation will not apply to a building not falling within the purview of the above Act. In other words, petitioner's occupation becomes unauthorised only if the building falls within the purview of the Act. The question, therefore, is whether the buiding in question falls under the Act,