SYED AHMED Vs. NAIMATULLAH SHAREEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition coming up before us on a reference made by our learned brother, A. Kuppuswami, J., in view of the conflict of the decisions rendered by one of us (Gopala Rao Ekbote, J.) in Kuntahara Had Rao v. Subbalakshmamma, and another rendered by Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., in Iswarlal v. Kursheed Begum.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows-These proceedings arise out of an application filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for eviction under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of the rents. It appears that the suit building originally belonged to the petitioner, that he sold the same to one Ahmed Shareef, the father of the minor respondent, that the said Ahmed Shareef, first let out the premises to one Mohammad Yaseen, and subsequently to the petitioner herein under a regular written lease deed. After the death of Ahmed Shareef, the respondent herein filed an application for eviction for the reasons mentioned above. This application for eviction was resisted by the petitioner alleging that the sale deed executed by him in favour of Ahmed Shareef was only by way of a colletaral security and that the rental deed was executed in lieu of interest. The Rent Controller rejected both the objections raised by the petitioner and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner and that as admittedly no rents were paid by the petitioner to the respondent, there was wilful default in payment of rents and accordingly directed eviction of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal R.A. No. 45 of 1968 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Thereupon the respondent (landlord) herein filed an application I.A. No. 144 of 1968 under section 11 (1) of the Act for directing the petitioner (tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent and in default to pass an order under section 11 (4) of the Act. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and that section 11 of the Act is applicable only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted aud not otherwise. The lower Court, relaying upon a decision of one of us (Gopalarao Ekbote, J.), in Kuntapara Hart Rao v. V. Telukur Subba Lakshmamma, (1966) 1 An.W.R. 122. rejected this objection and directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent of Rs. 1,820 by 13th August, 1968. Against the said order this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner (tenant). The only contention urged by Sri H. S. Gururaja Rao the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that section 11 of the Act is inapplicable where the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and that in the instant case, as the petitioner had disputed the title of the respondent, the provisions of section 11 of the Act, could not be Validly invoked by the respondent. In this connection it is necessary to read the provisions of section 11 of the Act, which are in the following terms ;

(3.) The appeal provision is contained in section 20 which is to the following effect