MAJOR MD AHSANUDDM HUSSAIN Vs. HYDERABAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
LAWS(APH)-1972-12-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 05,1972

MAJOR MD.AHSANUDDM HUSSAIN,MAJOR MOHD AHSANUDDIN HUSSAIN Appellant
VERSUS
HYDERABAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.,ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENT, ABIDROAD (MASSORRAT MANSIL 5-9-237. ABIDS, HYD. Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.