SIDDIAH Vs. KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision petition has been referred to a Full Bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J. under the following circumstances. In Sitaramanjaneyulu v. Krishnayya, 1951-2 Mad LJ 231 = (AIR 1952 Mad 283) it was held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, construing Section 7(6) of the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, that when a landlord files an application for eviction on the ground that the tenant committed default in payment of rent, it is not open to him to file a subsequent application for eviction based on a subsequent default committed by the tenant during the pendency of the first petition for eviction. The above decision was later overruled by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Muthuswami, 1962-2 Mad LJ 218 = (AIR 1962 Mad 447) (FB), and hence the ruling of the Division Bench ceased to be good law so far as the Madras High Court is concerned In view of the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra High Court in Subbarayudu v. State of Andhra. 1955 Andh WR 150 = (AIR 1955 Andh 87) (FB) the decisions of the Madras High Court rendered prior to July 1954 are binding on the Andhra High Court. Hence the ruling of the Division Bench referred to above though superseded by a subsequent Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, is still binding on this Court. But in view of the fact that it was subsequently overruled in the Madras High Court, it may be necessary for this Court to consider whether the ruling of the said Division Bench requires reconsideration and hence the matter has been placed before us.

(2.) The petitioner in the present C. R. P. is the tenant of the respondent who is himself a tenant of the original owner of premises No. 5717 Subhas Road, Secunderabad. On 20-6-1956, the respondent filed an eviction petition R. C. 352/56 in the Court of the Rent Controller Secunderabad against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner tenant fell into arrears of rent due from January to the end of May 1956. The petitioner tenant, while denying that there was any willful default raised an objection that the present eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that a previous eviction petition by the landlord viz R. C. 14/55 was still pending on the date of the institution of the present eviction petition. though it was subsequently dismissed on 18-6-1858, that is, before the disposal of the present eviction petition on 29-8-1960. The Rent Controller decided the question of maintainability as a preliminary point and held that the present petition was maintainable. The tenant took up the matter in appeal questioning the decision on the preliminary point but was unsuccessful. After the petition was taken up for trial on merits, the Rent Controller held that the tenant was guilty of willful default and passed an order of eviction. The said order having been confirmed in Appeal No. 319/3/60 by the Appellate Authority on 29-8-1960, the tenant has filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner tenant is that the present eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the pendency of a prior petition for eviction though based upon a prior cause of action