SYED AHMED Vs. NAIMSTULLAH SHAREEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was sought to be resisted on the ground that the respondent in the lower court who is the petitioner denied the relationship of Landlord and tenant and tenet section 11 is not applicable, The lower Court, however, reliedon a decision of this Court in KUNTAHAR HARIRAO V. YELUKUR SUBBALAKSHAMMA (1) and held notwithstanding the denial of the relationship of the landlord and tenant section 11 would apply. Mr. Gururaja Rao refers to another decision in ISWARLAL V, KURSHEED BEGUM (2) which is contrary to the above, and in which it was held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 11 of the Act when the very relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, I, therefore, consider it desirable that this case is posted before a Bench, The papers may be pleased; before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders as to the posting.

(2.) In pursuance of the aforesaid Order, this petition came on for hearing before the Bench consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote & Ramachandra Rao, J,J.

(3.) This Revision petition comes up before us on a reference made by oar learned brother, A. Kuppuswamy, J in view of the conflict of two decisions rendered by one of us (Gopal Rao Ekbote, J) in KUNTAHAR HARI RAO V. YELIKUR SUBBALAXMAMMA(1) and another rendered by Chandrasekhara Sastri, J in ESWARLAL V KURSHEED BEGUM(2).