HEERACHAND POONAMCHAND Vs. KANCHAO CYCLE TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, who is the petitioner herein, filed an application before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit mu'gi on the ground of wilful default and personal occupation. Pending that application, he filed an application under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act for short) praying the Court to direct the respondent-tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,800/- towards arrears of rent from August, 1987 till September, 1988 failing which orders may be passed to evict the tenant from the suit mulgi. After hearing the respective contentions of the rival parties, the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit rents and amenity charges at the rate of Rs. 1200/- from August, 1987 till September, 1988 to a tune of Rs. 16,800/- and further at the same rate of Rs. 1200/- till the date of that order on or before 30-3-1989 failing which the tenant shall be evicted from the suit mulgi. As the tenant could not pay the rent within the stipulated time, he filed an LA. under Section 11 (3) and (4) of the Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. to extend the time. That application was rejected. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad contending inter alia that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction in view of the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller that Rs. 1,200/- has to be payable towards rent and amenity charges. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the tenant holding that the rent includes amenity charges, and therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 11 of the Act is without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the order. The appellate Court also found that since the tenant has been evicted in pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act, it directed the Rent Controller to restore possession of the demised premises to the tenant, Hence the rivision petition by the landlord.

(2.) In this revision petition it is contended by Sri C.P. Sarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the appeal filed by the tenant as such is not 'maintainable.

(3.) The contention raised by the landlord is not tenable. It is only an interlocutory order passed in a matter pending under Section 11 of the Act. The appellate Court has rightly entertained the appeal and the contention that the appeal is not maintainable is not correct. According to the learned counsel that the tenant himself in the counter filed by him admitted that Rs, 300/- is for amenities and as amenities were not provided, he stopped payment of rent and that amount has to be adjusted. It is not in dispute that the amount payable towards rent is Rs. 900/-and for amenities it is Rs. 300/- per month. Whether the charges for amenities also have to be included in the amount that is being paid in lieu of letting out of the premises is a matter that has to be gone into.