BANDARU NARASINGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the building bearing No. 7/611 situate at Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam. The building was construced in the year 1940-41 and the petitioner was living in the house till 1954. After he vacated the house, the Government allotted the same to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Construction on 18th March, 1954, on a monthly rental of Rs. 150. There was an agreement of lease, dated 21st June, 1954 executed between the State Government and the petitioner; the chief condition of tenancy being that the petitioner should be placed in possession of the building at the end of one year with an option to the tenant to renew the lease with the consent of the landlord. The last such renewal was for one year from 18th March, 1957 to 18h March, 1958. The Electrical Executive Engineer vacated the building in or about February, 1958 and it was put in possession of another officer, viz., Divisional Engineer, Transformer Erection Division through an allotment order. The Divisional Engineer used a portion of the building for his residential purposes after making structural alterations without the consent of the owner. No lease deed was executed. The petitioner demanded higher rent from the tenant and when it was refused, he made an application for fixation of fair rent under the Madras Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). The Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam fixed the fair rent of Rs. 200 per month from the date of the petition. The petitioner and the State Government preferred revisions before the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge, which petitions are pending. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that in the revision filed by the State, stay order has been granted.

(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings for fixation of fair rent, the Authorised Officer acting under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) divided the building into two portions and allotted one portion to the Assistant Engineer, TED on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 for the location of his office and the other portion of the building to Sri P. Samson, Asistant Engineer, Distribution, for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 70. It is this order of the Authorised Officer which is challenged in this writ petition on two grounds. The first is that the Authorised Officer has not the jurisdiction to divide the building and allot the same to more than one person ; and the second ground is that the Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to fix the rent of the building during the pendency of the proceedings for fixation of fair rent in the Court.

(3.) I will take up the second point for consideration first. The proceedings for fixation of fair rent having been started in the year 1959 prior to the passing of the Rent Control Act, 1960, it is not disputed that those proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Madras Act. Under section 3 (5) of the Madras Act if the building is required for any of the purposes, or for occupation by any of the officers, specified in sub-section (3), the landlord shall deliver prossession of the building to the authorised officer and the State Government shall be deemed to be the tenant. It further provides that the terms of the tenancy shall be such as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant and in default of an agreement,