JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is more or less a fifth or sixth attempt of the petitioner- tenant to protract the trial of the suit in O.S. No. 173 of 1982 on the file of the V Additional Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Admittedly the petitioner obtained tenancy from the respondent for a total rent of Rs. 1800/- of which Rs. 1,000/- represents the rent for the premises as such and Rs. 800/- for the amenities such as furniture, fittings, etc. The respondent filed O.S. No. 173/82 for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner-tenant raised a preliminary issue that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in as much as the rent for the premises should be treated as Rs.1,000/- but not as Rs. 1,800/- and that in view of the G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accomodation-A) dated 29-12-1983 exempting the buildings with rents beyond Rs. 1,000/- only from the purview of the Act, this is a case where the landlord should have approached the Rent Centoller for eviction. That preliminary issue was decided against the petitioner-tenant. Then he filed a revision CRP No. 299 of 1985 in this Court and the same was dismissed. Against the said order the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court as S.I.R. No. 12135 of 1985 and the same was also rejected.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition No. 12440 of 1985 questioning the validity of Section 2 (iii) (b) and . Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Real and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition WPMP. No. 17237 of 1985 for stay of the proceedings in the suit O.S. No. 173/82. The stay granted in that petition was vacated on 28-1-1986.

(3.) Thereafter, the suit was being proceeded with and with a view to stall the same, the petitioner filed LA. No. 66 of 1986 for amendment of the plaint raising the same questioning regarding the validity of the statutory provisions which he raised in the writ petition. That amendment application was dismissed by the trial Court. Then the petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 1831 of 1986 against that order and the same was also rejected.