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

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
Court.
        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

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS