SURYANARAYANA Vs. VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the landlord. He filed R.C.C. 5/1980 for demolition of the building of the petition scheduled property. The Rent Controller by order dated July 30, 1981 allowed the application. It was confirmed on appeal, and on further revision C.R.P. 2280/1983, this Court by judgment dated January 24, 1984 dismissed the C.R.P. and directed the respondent to deliver possession of the premises within one month from the date of receipt of the notice from the petitioner to the effect that he obtained permission from the Municipality for construction of the house. Accordingly, the petitioned gave notice on April 25, 1984 calling upon the respondent to deliver possession of the demised premises. Pursuant there to, it is found by the Controller that the respondent delivered possession on May 25, 1984 and the petitioner demolished the building. Then, the petitioner filed CMP.2036/ 85 in CRP. 2280/83 in this Court for extension of time for three months. This Court extended time for 3 months by order dated February 13, 1985. There by the last date of which the petitioner to construct the building and to redeliver possession there of to the respondent is May 13, 1985 but the petitioner did not start construction of the building. Accordingly, the respondent filed EP.5/85 for appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of the open site construct the shop in the open site and to deliver possession thereof to him. That petition has been ordered by the Rent Controller as against which the C.R.P. has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by Sri C.V.N. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific provision in A.P. Buildin s (Lease, Rent and-Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act 15 of 1960, for short, the Act) for such an order being passed by the Court below. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent did not comply with the direction within the stipulated period, viz., May 25, 1984. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In support there of, he relied upon the decisions in Mohd. Mukarram Ali vs. Khusro Begum #1 and Ramnath vs. M/s Ramnath Chittar Mal #2 He is also relying on Sections 13 and 16 (3) of Bombay Rent Control Act which pro vide remedy for reconstruction ; similar provision is absent in the Act. So there is no power to appoint a Commissioner. The question herefore is whether the respondent is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Under section 12 of the Act, landlord is given power to apply to the Controller that he bonafide requires the premises for immediate purpose of demolishing it and if the Controller is satisfied that the requirement is bonafide, an order of ejectment is to be ordered subject to the condition that on rebuilding, the landlord is to give possession of the property to the tendant. Under sub Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, the landlord has to give an undertaking that the building, on completion of the repair, alterations or additions or the new building on its completion, will be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1), for his reoccupation before the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf.

(3.) In this case, the petitioner sought for ejectment of the respondent under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, The Rent Controller has ordered eviction and ultimately this court has confirmed the same. He undertook to redeliver possession after reconstruction within six months. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner gave notice on April 25, 1985 calling upon the respondent to deliver possession of the property to the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction. The Tribunal below found after enquiry that the respondent infact delivered possession on May 25, 1984. It is a finding of fact and is not open to reopen the question in revision. Though the petitioner raised the contention relying upon the reply notice given by the respondent that he delivered possession on May 28, 1984. The date "May 28", 1984 is an obvious typographical mistake for "May 25, 1984". The decision of this Court in Mohd. Mukarram AH vs. Khusro Begum (1) and Ramanath vs. Ramanath Chittar Mal (2) have no application to the facts of this case for the reason that those are the cases where the tenant has not complied with the conditions required for the delivery, and thereby he lost his right to restitution.