VARAHA NARASIMHA CHARYULU Vs. GUDIVADA KANAKARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, despite the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the lower courts, must be allowed. It is preferred by the defendant who has been unsuccessful in the courts below.

(2.) The defendant took certain premises on lease under Ex. B.I dated 24th December, 1957. He occupied it on 1-1-1959. The oiginal lease was for three years. On the expiry of the period the plaintiff asked him to vacate. when he did not do so, on 26th February, 1965 the plaintiff issued to the defendant a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to quit and thereafter refused to receive rents. The defendant filed a petition before the Rent Controller for a direction to the Plaintiff to receive rents. The Rent Controller, however dismissed the petition saying that the building was constructed after 1958 and therefore the petition could not be ordered. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit far possession and for profits.

(3.) The defendant (present appellant) resisted the suit on the ground that he was entitled to the protection of the A P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1960 and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. What took place in December, 1958 was only remodelling or reconstruction of the house. Therefore, it was not a new house within the meaning of Sec. 32 (b).