HANUMANTHARAYAPPA Vs. VITTAL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision to petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the respondent in. both the matters is common.

(2.) The petitioners are tenants. The respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed applications under section 12(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. (No. XV of 1960) (for short the Act) in H.R. Cs. 5 and 6 of 1968 for bonafide permission for demolition and for reconstruction of the building on the same premises. The Rent controller ordered the petitions on September 16, 1968. The respondent gave undertakings on September 20, 1968 under Section 12 (2) of the Act that on completion of the construction, he would deliver the same portions to the petitioners. One year time was granted to the respondent to complete the construction and one month thereafter, he was permitted to redeliver possession to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of demolition, the petitioners filed CMA S. 22 and 23/68 respectively. The appellate Court confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller by its judgment dated March 12, 1970. During the pendency of the appeals, operation of the order of the learned Rent Controller was suspended. While dismissing the appeals, the appellate authority gave time upto May 12, 1970 for delivery of the possession to the respondent. Before the expiry of the time, the respondent had taken possession of the premises on April 27, 1970 and constructed the building, but the did not redeliver possession of the property to the petitioners. The petitioners gave notices to the respondent on January 10, 1971 calling upon him to re-deliver possession. In the reply dated January 20, 1971 instead of delivering the same property, the respondent offered to deliver a different property, which the petitioners refused to accept. As a result they filed I.A. Nos. 222 and 223 of 1971 on January 29, 1971 for redelivery of the possession. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated September 23, 1971 ordered redelivery of possession to the petitioners. Against that order, the respondent filed CMA Nos. 18 and 19 of 1971. The appellate authority by an order dated February 8, 1979, while upholding that the property should be redelivered to the petitioners, held that the I, As are not maintainable and directed to file applications for execution. In the interregnum, there is an injunction restraining the petitioner from seeking redelivery of the possession of the property. Thereafter immediately the petitioners filed EPs. 178 and 179 of 1979 on July 21, 1979 for delivery of possession. Those petitioners were dismissed by the Rent Controller on two grounds. Firstly, there is delay in filing the applications and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, Secondly, the petitioners have not delivered possession to the respondent as per the direction given by the controller. Therefore, the petioners are not entitled to restitution of possession. Assailing the legality of this order, the present C.R.Ps have been filed,

(3.) Sri N. Sesha Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the view of the court below on both the grounds is clearly illegal. Therefore, it warrants interference. Sri Innayya Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, seeks to support the order on both the grounds. He contends, that once the petitioners had not delivered possession of the prpperty as per the orders of the controller, they contravened the order and. therefore they are not entitled to the restitution of the property and in support thereof, he relied on the decisions in Ramnath vs. Ramnath Chhetiar and Mohd. Mukaram Ali vs. Khusro Begum. He further contended that there is an obnormal delay in filing, the execution applications. The delay has not been explained under Rule 23 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules and that if the application is not filed within six months, unless the delay is properly explained and the Rent Controller exercises power under the proviso to Rule 23, the application cannot be ordered.