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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

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

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS