MAJOR MD AHSANUDDM HUSSAIN Vs. HYDERABAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAJOR MD.AHSANUDDM HUSSAIN,MAJOR MOHD AHSANUDDIN HUSSAIN
HYDERABAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.,ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENT, ABIDROAD (MASSORRAT MANSIL 5-9-237. ABIDS, HYD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The landlord is the petitioner in these two revision petitions
The relevant facts are as follows:- The landlord Major Ahsanuddin
Hussain, filed the application R. C. No. 32/EV/1964 on the
file of the Court of the additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), for
eviction of the tenant, The Hyderabad Construction Company Ltd., on
grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and of subletting. During
the pendency of the said eviction petition, the landlord filed an
application under Section 11 of the Act, to direct the tenant to pay
arrears of rent. A direction was given by the Rent Controller to the
tenant fo deposit all arrears of rent and also future rents on or before
5th of each month. On default being committed in complying with
the said order, an order was passed under Section 11 directing the
tenant to put the landlord in possession of the suit premises and
stopping all further proceedings in the eviction petition.
(2.) The tenant carried the matter in appeal R. A. 71/3/65 and
obtained stay. Again a default was committed in payment of rents
during the pendency of the appeal, and an application was moved by
the landlord under Section 11. The main appeal was finally dismissed
on merits. The tenant preferred a revision to this Court in C. R. P.
No. 1375/1965, During the pendency of the revision, the landlord
executed the warrant of eviction and obtained possession of the suit
building. On 1-4-1966, the revision petition was disposed of by this
Court, allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order of
the Kent Controller, on the ground that the tenant was not given an
opportunity to show cause in respect of the default committed in
payment of rent for the month of January, 1965, and directing the
Kent Controller to proceed with the eviction petition R.C. 32/EV/64
inter-alia giving an opportunity to the tenant to explain the delay in
payment of the rent for January, 1965, but at the same time
giving a further direction that it would not entitle the tenant to the
restoration of possession which would ultimately depend or follow the
decision in the eviction petition. The decision in the Civil Revision
Petition is reported in Hyderabad Construction Co. v. Major E. Hussain.
For some reason or other, it is not clear as to why the eviction
petition was not taken up immediately for disposal. For nearly six
years, the eviction petition remained undisposed of on the file of the
Court of the Additional Kent Controller. On 5-4-1972 the said
eviction petition was dismissed for default of the landlord's
appearance. It is stated that summons was taken out to the last-known
address of the landlord, that as the landlord was not residing at that
address summons was affixed at said address and that service was
treated as sufficient, and as the landlord failed to appear on the date
fixed for hearing of the eviction petition, it was dismissed for default.
From the record, it appears that the tenant filed the application
E.A. No. 98/1972 on 15-6-1972 for restitution and this application was
ordered on 17-6-1972, but it does not appear that the
landlord was given notice of the filing of the said application for
restitution or of the order of restitution. On 5-7-1972, the landlord
came to know of the said order of restitution and the very next day
i.e, 6-7-1972 he filed an application under Rule 8(3) of the rules
nude under the Act, for setting aside the dismissal of the eviction
petition R.C. No. 32/EV/54 for default, but that application was
dismissed on the ground that it was oat of time and that no application
under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed, and at the same time
the Kent Controller observed that it was open to the landlord to file
another application along with an application for condoning the delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) Against the order of the Kent Controller giving liberty to the
landlord to file a fresh application along with an application under
Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the tenant preferred an appeal E.A. No.
558/1972. The landlord filed the application LA. 595/1972 under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the
application for setting aside the order of dismissal for default, and
another application LA. No. 593/1972 for setting aside the order of
dismissal on 5-4-1972. The tenant filed the application LA. 1298/
1972 in the appeal R.A. 568/1972, and obtained stay.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.