AVLA SUBBA REDDY Vs. S. KHASIM SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Khasim Saheb, trades in silver-ware in premises Door No. 17/303 in Badar Khan Masid Street in Cuddapah Town. The premises is of 51/2 feet width, with old rafters and roof is leaky. Mynam Lingahi is the owner of that premises who wanted to reconstruct the building, therefore, asked Khasim Saheb to vacate the premises and issued a notice on 9.3.1971 for vacation of the premises. On 17.2.1971 Khasim Saheb purchased premises Door No. 13/429 for Rs. 30,000/- and lodged O.P. (H.R.C.) No. 14 of 1971 for eviction of his tenant Avula Subba Reddy (the Revision Petitioner) the tenant in the premises. Earlier on 12.3.1971 the tenant in a letter on 6.11.1968 informed the landlord of the terms in Ex. B-4, the lease that he obtained from Khairunnissa Begum, (vendor from whom the house was purchased by Khasim Saheb) was for five years and said he cannot be evicted before 6.11.1973. The Rent Controller by order on 24.9.1973 directed the tenant to vacate the building. In the order it was held the terms of the lease Ex. B-4, bind the succeeding owner (Khasim Saheb). That order was confirmed in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1973 (dated 23.2.1977) on appeal. Hence the above revision by the tenant.

(2.) The only question raised by the tenant is founded on the terms of Ex. B-4. The lease deed it is contended created an indefeasible right in favour of the tenant for the period of five years and before expiration of that period there was no right in the landlord to have the premises ordered for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960. The accrued right of the tenant for the specified time under power of jurisdiction to entertain proceedings against a tenant. It is argued the rights of Subba Reddi the tenant with reference to the terms in Ex. B-4 are protected under Sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of Section 10 of the Act which is extracted hereunder :

(3.) The Legislature in the Act, XV of 1960, generally protected the rights of tenants from unreasonable evictions and in the case of landlords further derived under Section 10(3)(d) even of a right to move the Tribunal for eviction if in the agreement they have agreed to allow the tenant to continue for a specified period. In cases where there is such an agreement the tenant can continue till the expiration of the specified period. In such cases the agreement is a bar under Section 10(3)(d). To that extent the freedom of contract of the parties is preserved by the special Act.