S KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-33
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 08,1992

SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

AHMEDUNNISA BEGUM DIED VS. ZUBEDA KHANTOON [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-127] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner is a tenant of the 2nd respondent in a shop bearing No. 15-6-220, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.330/-, as per the lease deed dated 1-12-80. Even prior to the lease deed, the petitioner was a tenant. The 2nd respondent evaded to receive rents and the petitioner filed RP No.107/83 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for permission to deposit rents. The 2nd respondent contested the petition stating that the building in which the shop is under the occupation of the petitioner, is exempted from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (in short the Act) as per the exemption granted by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.100, General Administration Department (C) dt. 16-2-1983. Consequently, the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by the petitioner in RA No.216/84 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court Hyderabad, was dismissed on 8-3-1988.
(2.)The petitioner questions G.O.Ms.No.100 dt.16-2-83 on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity before granting exemption to the building. The Government Order is also impugned on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that there are 15 tenants in the building in question and 13 of,them of had no objection for the grant of exemption. The petitioner refused to receive the notice and therefore, the process Server affixed the notice on the shutter of the petitioner's shop and the petitioner was duly served. The building in question was very old and dilapidated and the 2nd respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,75,750/- towards .renovation and spent a further amount of Rs.40,000/- for reconstruction of the building. The concerned officer inspected the building and found that the renovation and reconstruction had been carried out by the landlord, and found the building became a new building. The grant of exemption was justified under such circumstances.
;


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