CHERRIPI REDDY PULLA REDDY Vs. MAMIDI NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition at the instance of the tenant arises out of a petition filed under Sec. 14(3) of the Rent Control Act to grant temporary mandatory injunction directing the landlord to remove the lock and key, which was put by the respondent in the rented premises i.e., the hotel called Mothi Mahal situated at Kambala tank, Rajahmundry.

(2.) It is stated by the tenant that the landlord on the evening of 14.4 1981 locked the hotel premises and caused serious obstruction to his opening the hotel and entering the premises. When the tenant was trying to remove the lock the respondent's henchmen threw him away from removing the lock and subsequently he could not open the hotel and stopped running the hotel and therefore he is obliged to file the petition for granting mandatory injunction and temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the lock and key. This is resisted by the landlord stating that as per the terms of the contract the tenant is liable to vacate the premises the moment there are arrears and the tenant sub-let the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 and a registered notice dated 19.9.1980 was issued calling upon him to vacate the premises on the ground of sub-letting and also arrears of rent. The tenant refused the notice. One of the sub-tenants i.e., Dhanalaxmi was causing nuisance and the respondent protested and asked the sub-tenant to vacate and sub-tenant Dhanalaxmi brought the petitioner and the premises was delivered to the respondent on 15.3.1981 and the premises is in possession of the respondent ever since then. The allegation of locking the premises on 14.4.1981 is denied.

(3.) The Rent Controller held that the tenant did not deliver the petition schedule premises as contended by the landlord particularly in view of the admission of the landlord that the entire hotel material including furniture is in the schedule premises. In this view the Rent Controller directed the landlord to open the lock illegally put by her to the petition schedule premises. On appeal the Appellate Authority confirmed the view of the Rent Controller that the tenant did not vacate the premises and tenancy subsisted but, however, held that the tenant has no remedy under the respondent Act to seek restitution or issuance of a mandatory injunction of breaking open the lock and the only remedy open to the tenant is to file suit for recovery of possession and the application under Sec. 14 of the Rent Control is not maintainable.