KHAIR MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. S ERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29-9-1981 rendered in O.S.No. 596 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit. Defendant No. 1, whohad suffered the decree for declaration and consequential injunction, has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The subject matter of the suit is a house, which was constructed by hit her to the City Improvement Board, which was succeeded by the present Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Defendant No. 2 was the allottee of the suit house. The allotment was by way of hire purchase agreement and then on payment of the full instalments, the house was to be registered in his name. In fact, that is the normal scheme of the A.P. Housing Board or even the former City Improvement Board. Defendant No. 2 had styled himself as the owner of the suit house and sold the same to the pLalntiff through a registered sale deed dated 30-8-1968 for a valuable consideration. Later on, the pLalntiff had come to know that the 2nd defendant did not acquire title from the Housing Board and the reason was non-payment of the amount of Rs. 2,500/- which was due and payable by the 2nd defendant to the Housing Board. The pLalntiff had then paid the said amount and got a registered sale deed executed from A.P. Housing Board conveying the title of the suit house in favour of the 2nd defendant. She had constructed 2 more rooms to the then existing structure and rented out to one Ibraheem. When the said Ibraheem had vacated, then the same was rented-out to Syed Hussain, who had also vacated in the month of July, 1977. The suit house having been constructed before 26-8-1957, was covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as (the Rent Control Act'). When it came to the notice of the Accommodation Controller, he had exercised his power under Sec. 3 of the Rent Control Act and had allotted the suit house to one Ameer Khan, who had been paying the rents to the pLalntiff. During April, 1979, the pLalntiff had applied to the Accommodation Controller to release the house from the occupation of Ameer Khan on the plea of her requirement for personal occupation and pursuant to the same, the Accommodation Controller had issued notice to the said Ameer Khan to vacate the house. But, on 26-4-1979, the pLalntiff had received a Memo from the Accommodation Controller directingher to produce the necessary documents to prove the ownership of the building and this was because of the intervention of the 1st defendant in projecting himself as the owner of the suit house and to release the suit house to him with a specific plea not to release the house to the pLalntiff on the ground that the latter had no title. Ultimately, the Accommodation Controller issued a Memo dated 4-6-1979 directing the pLalntiff to establish her title in a Civil Court. The result was the suit under this appeal.