TULSI BAI Vs. GULAB KANZAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings taken under section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent, the landlord. The eviction petition is filed on the following grounds ; (1) the tenant has denied the title of the landlord without any bona fides; (2) the tenant committed Wilful default in payment of rent; (3) the tenant sub-let the building without the prior permission of the landlord and (4) the building is required bona fide for the personal occupation of the landlord.- The Rent Controller found all'the four grounds in favour of the landlord and accordingly passed orders of eviction. Aggrieved by that, as provided under section 20 of the Act, the tenant preferred en appeal before the court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad, which is the appellate authority. It is provided under section 11(1) of the Act that:

(2.) Therefore, under this provision, before a tenant is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, he has to pay to the landlord or deposit with the appellate authority alt arrears of rent due in respect of the building. Therefore, the Appellate Authority while entertaining the appeal can insist upon the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent due till that date. When the petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority, the office called upon him to deposit the entire arrears of rent due up to the date of filing of the appeal before the same could be registered. But without making any such deposit, pending registration of the appeal the tenant filed an application for granting stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority granted stay on the condition of the tenant depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. It is against that order this civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) In the revision petition two contentions are raised by the tenant, viz.' (1) the arrears of rent mentioned in sec. 11(1) of the Act are the arrears which are legally recoverable only and therefore the liability to deposit arrears of rent cannot extend to arrears for a period more than three years, as the recovery of arrears for a period beyond three years would be barred by time and (2) as the petitioner questioned the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent by denying the title of the respondent to the building and that question being a jurisdictional one, it must be decided first by the appellate authority before any direction can be given to the petitioner for depositing the arrears of rent.