KODILA ANANTHA KRISHNACHARI Vs. NANDYAL RAJA SAHIBGARI CHINNA HUSSAIN BI CHARITABLE FUND
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KODILA ANANTHA KRISHNACHARI
NANDYAL RAJA SAHIBGARI CHINNA HUSSAIN BI CHARITABLE FUND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this defendant's appeal a problem of some difficulty is raised. The question is whether a building which has undergone considerable repairs and to which one or two rooms have been added after 25-8-1957 is a building within the meaning of Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) to which the Act does not apply.
(2.) The material facts are simple. In respect of a mulgi bearing doors Nos. 158 and 159/2 in the Nandyal Municipal Town, there was a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as evidenced by Ex. A-4 dated 3-4-1958. Later, on 4-4-1960, the parties executed another lease deed Ex. A-3. Onceagain on 12-7-1963, they entered into another registered lease agreement evidenced by Ex A2. That was to run for five years from 1-5-1963 to 30-4-1968 As the period was coming to a close, the plaintiff executed another lease deed to a third party on 17-11-1967 and gave notice to the defendant to vacate the premises on completion of the lease period. That notice is Ex, B-3 dated 18-12-1967. To this, the defendant replied under Ex. A-9- dated 8-1-1968 claiming protection under the Act. Consequently the plaintiff brought the suit for possession of the mulgi on 12-2-1968. The principal defence was that the suit did not He in a civil Court and the plaintiff's only remedy was through the Tribunals constituted under the Act.
(3.) The plaintiff attempted to get over this objec. tion by saying that the building was constructed after 26-8-1957 and was therefore exempt from the operation of the Act and the Act did not apply. The forum open to the plaintiff for seeking possession is only in the ordinary court of law. There were other questions as well, but the only question that is canvassed before me is whether in the circumstances of the case, the building is one which comes within the ambit of section 32 (b) of the Act. In other words the question is whether the building is one constructed on or after 26-8-1957. I am, therefore not adverting to the other circumstances of the case, because they are not material or relevant to the only point that is placed before me for decision. The trial Court held that only repairs were effected to the building in 1958 and consequently it is not covered by the exemption provided in section 32(b).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.