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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS