REDDI PAIDIYYA Vs. ATYAM PADMAVATHI RANI
LAWS(APH)-2008-10-20
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 18,2008

REDDI PAIDIYYA Appellant
VERSUS
ATYAM PADMAVATHI RANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

C.ALBERT MORRIS V. K.CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THESE second appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment in view of the fact that the plaintiff is common though the defendants are different and further the substantial questions of law involved being common.
(2.)THESE second appeals were admitted by this Court on the strength of the following substantial questions of law.
(1) Whether a lease could be validly determined by issuing quit notice under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act, even though demised premises consists of a "building" within the meaning of A. P. Buildings (Lease, eviction, Rent) Control Act, 1960, holding that what was leased out was only a vacant site belonging to landlord and the superstructures and building constructed thereon belong to tenant, and holding that civil Court has jurisdiction and that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Eviction, rent) Control Act, 1960 ignoring the decision reported in 1964 (1) MLJ page 110 which says that the tenant is entitled to protection under Rent control Act, and that building becomes integral part of the land, and the lease is no longer regarded as lease of vacant site?

(2) Whether the Courts below could refuse to follow the principle of law laid down in 1964 (1) MLJ 110 solely on the ground, that it arose under Madras Buildings Lease and rent Control Act and not under A. P. Buildings (Lease, Eviction, Rent)Control Act, 1960, forgetting the fact that Andhra Pradesh Act had consolidated and repealed the Madras buildings and Rent Control Act, 1946 and till such it was the latter Act was in force?

(3) Could the civil Court invoke jurisdiction of a matter pertaining exclusively conferred on a Special Tribunal under a statute, solely on the ground, it was not pleaded in the pleadings and could pass a decree of eviction validly without having jurisdiction at all, especially when there is no waiver of estoppel against a statute?

(3.)SRI Y. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing appellants-defendants in these appeals had taken this Court through the substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of second appeal and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, the findings recorded both by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions on the aspect of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit of this nature, a suit for eviction.
;


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