Dismissed

Rachuru Lakshmaiah v. Karamsetty Veeranarasimha Rao [died]

Telangana HC13 Aug 2012SA/1215/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In second appeals arising from decrees in suits for possession and recovery of rent, the court held that the civil court had jurisdiction as the rent at the time of filing was under the pre-amended limit. The 2005 amendment raising the limit was not retrospective. Appeals dismissed; possession ordered to be vacated by a specific date.

What did the court decide?

Time up to 31-12-2012 to vacate premises; deposit rent as directed; no costs.

Rachuru Lakshmaiah Vs Karamsetty Veeranarasimha Rao… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL NOS.1214 & 1215 OF 2009

¶2

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶3

Both appeals arise between the same parties. The appellant/defendant herein is the tenant of the premises belonging to the plaintiffs having entered into the possession of the property from 01-011991 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,900/- and thereafter a quit notice was given on 13-03-1995, for which a reply was given. It was also alleged that the appellant herein fell in arrears of rent from 12-12-1994 to 31-03-1995 and also continued to commit default. Therefore, O.S.No.26 of 1996 was filed on the file of the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for recovery of the money; whereas O.S.No.142 of 1997 was filed for recovery of the possession of the suit schedule property.

¶4

The defendant pleaded that the rent was originally only Rs.1500/and from April-1994 it was RS.2,900/-. When the plaintiffs have purchased the property, the defendant offered the rents but the plaintiffs did not take the money and as such it was deposited into the suit.

¶5

On the basis of the above pleadings the court below has decreed both the suits and as against that A.S.No.157 of 2003 was filed against the judgment in O.S.No.142 of 1997 which was dismissed and as against that S.A.No.1214 of 2009 was filed. As against the decree in O.S.No.26 of 1996 A.S.No.160 of 2003 was filed which was also dismissed and against that S.A No.1215 of 2000 was filed.

¶6

Both appeals were filed on the question of law and the same were admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

¶7

“Whether in view of the amended provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, which was amended in the year 2005 where under the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.3,500/-, the civil court has got jurisdiction to try the suit or not?

¶8

So far as the relationship between the landlord and tenant is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and in fact a valid quit

¶9

notice was given and the court below has taken into consideration the admitted rent and also taking into consideration the possible enhancement from time to time also granted mesne profits @ Rs.4,500/per month, which cannot be said to be excessive. It will avoid the further inquiry into the matter. So far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned, evidently, by the date of the institution of the suit, there is no dispute about the civil court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the rent was Rs.2,900/-. It is also not in dispute that the Rent Control Act has been amended in the year 2005 and as per Section.32, the provisions of the Act are made non-applicable to the premises where the rent is more than Rs.3,500/-. In fact, this question has been decided by a Larger Bench of this court which was reported in Ramvilas Bajaj Vs. Ashok Kumar (^[1] ) wherein it has been held that the Act is not retrospective and it is only prospective. Merely because, the appeal against the judgment is pending before the Supreme Court, the appellant cannot claim that the provisions of the said Act are to be applied to the facts of this case.

¶10

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to hold that the benefits of the Rent Control Act are available to the appellant.

¶11

Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. However, the appellant is given time up to 31-12-2012 to vacate the suit schedule premises. Further the appellant shall continue to deposit the amount as directed by the court below. No costs.

¶12

___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶13

13-08-2012 TSNR

¶14

[1] 2007(4) ALD 137

Rachuru Lakshmaiah v. Karamsetty Veeranarasimha Rao [died]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachuru Lakshmaiah v. Karamsetty Veeranarasimha Rao [died]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Unnava Tulasi Ratna Kumari Vs Mrs. Kurra Pushpa Manjari

The District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Vs M/s. Yemminganuru Weavers Co-operative Production

The Ap Transco Vs Kaki Sakuntala

Smt. Bale. Sattemma Vs Smt. Nepala Manikyam

Smt. Nepala Manikyam Vs Smt. Bale Sattemma

Yedla Dhatarao Vs Yajali Moshe