BHOOPATHI GOWRI SBANKAR Vs. NATHMAL HARIKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arising under the Rent Control Act are at the instance of the landlord. C.R.P. No. 2124/85 arises out of the order directing the landlord to deliver possession of the premises to the respondent on the deposit of monthly rent. C.R P. 326/86 arises out of the order holding that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain execution petition filed bythe tenant for re-delivery of the building.

(2.) The landlord filed petition under Sec. 12 of Rent Control Act on the ground that he requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of the same. The Rent Controller found that the requirement stated by the landlord is not bonafide and dismissed the petition. On appeal the appellate authority reversed the order and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order. In C.R.P. No. 515/84 at the instance of the tenant this Court by order dated 24-4-1984 confirmed the order of the appellate authority with a direction that the tenant should vacate the building within two months from the date of the order and the landlord shall obtain Municipal sanction for construction of the new building within three months and within six months from the date of sanction the landlord shall complete and offer the building to the tenant and if the tenant is prepared to accept the new building so offered the rent of the buildieg shall be fixed by agreement of parties and in accordance with law. After the completion of the construction of the building the landlord offered to let out the premises by letter dated 23-3-1985 on payment of rental of Rs. 3375/- p.m. The tenant sent a reply dated 29-3-1985 that he is prepared to pay the fair rent fixed under Sec. 4 of the Act and demanded delivery of possession. Thereupon the landlord sent a letter dated 4-4-1985 that this is a new building which has been recently constructed and as the rental value is more than Rs. 1,000/- the Rent Control Act does not apply and called upon the tenant to execute rent deed and take possession of the premises. A reply is again sent by the tenant stating that the rent proposed by him is accepted tentatively subject to the adjudication of fair rent under the Rent Control Act and called upon the landlord to deliver possession. The landlord sent a reply dated 12-4- 1985 reiterating that the possession of the premises would be given on executing the rent deed failing which the offer given by him shall be deemed to have been rejected by the tenant. There upon the tenant filed an execution petition for delivery of possession and the landlord also filed the execution application stating that the Rent Control Act is not applicable and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction. The Rent Controller held that the execution petition at the instance of the tenant is maintainable and passed an order directing delivery of possession. It may be mentioned that this Court declined to grant stay of the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T. Veerabhadrayya contended that in view of G.O. Ms. No. 636 exempting the buildings for a period of 10 years from the date of construction and also the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from the Rent Control Act, the application under Sec. 15 of the Rent Control Act is not maintainable and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri L. Narasimha Reddy seeking to sustain the order contended that the right to seek re-delivery of possession pursuant to Sec. 12 of the Act accrued before the G.O. came into force and as such the G.O. does not have any effect and further contended that the tenancy continues and is suspended for a short time in accordance with Sec. 12 of the Act and in any event the landlord waived his rights if any in view of the undertaking to re-deliver the property. Section 12 which controls the decision is as follows : 12. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs, alteration or additions or for reconstruction : (1) Not withstanding anything in this Act, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller may, if he is satisfied.