Rent Control Appeal - Deposit of arrears of rents is a conditional precedent under A.P.Rent Control Act - payment of rent is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal;2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

the appellate
Court was justified in not numbering the appeal unless and until
the rent was deposited; in a case where the jural relationship of
landlord and tenant is denied, the finding given by the Rent
Controller holds good; deposit of arrears of rent, as determined by
the Rent Controller, was indispensable; and it could not be said
that the appellate Court had committed any illegality or
impropriety in rejecting the appeal in limini.  Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considered it fit to
grant time to the petitioners to deposit the rents making it clear
that, in the event of the failure of the petitioners to deposit the
arrears of rent, the order, rejecting the appeal, would stand and
steps could be taken for eviction.
      It is evident from the law declared, in the aforesaid
judgments, that the appellate tribunal, at the stage of entertaining
an appeal and in requiring the appellant-tenant to deposit arrears
of rent, would not cause an enquiry into the finding recorded by
the Rent Controller that the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant exists; the appellate tribunal would depend upon the
finding of the Rent Controller that the jural relationship of landlord
and tenant exists; before passing an order under Section 11 of the
Act, the appellate tribunal need not conduct another full-fledged
enquiry into the jural relationship of landlord and tenant; no
tenant can prefer an appeal under Section 20 of the Act unless he
has paid the landlord, or has deposited in Court, the entire arrears
of rent; payment of rent is a condition precedent for entertaining
an appeal; Section 11 makes it obligatory for the tenant to pay
arrears of rent if he chooses to prefer an appeal under Section 20
of the Act; and the appeal itself would not be maintainable, unless
and until the tenant pays the arrears of rent, or deposits it into
        The petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent as
directed by the Rent Controller and, consequently, the appellate
tribunal has refused to entertain the appeal. I see no reason to
examine the contentions, urged on behalf of the petitioner, on
merits as payment of arrears of rent is a condition precedent for an
appeal to be entertained under the Act.
 As the appellate tribunal
has refused to entertain the appeal solely on the ground that the
petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent, it would be wholly
inappropriate for this Court to examine the contentions urged on
merits as these are matters for the appellate tribunal to decide, on
compliance by the petitioner of the requirement of Section 11 of
the Act of paying the entire arrears of rent. The order of the
appellate tribunal, to the extent it held that an appeal would not lie
till the arrears of rent are paid, does not suffer from any infirmity
necessitating interference by this Court.  However, as similar
directions were passed by the Division bench in Khursheed
Sehedur4 and this Court in S. Sathaiah3, the petitioner is granted
three weeks time from today to deposit the arrears of rent upto
date and, on such deposit, the appeal shall be heard by the
appellate tribunal, and be disposed of in accordance with law.  In
case the petitioner fails to deposit the entire arrears of rent within
the time stipulated hereinabove, the Rent Controller may proceed
and take steps for her eviction, from the subject premises, in
accordance with law.
          The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.  The
miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.  However, in the circumstances, without costs.


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.