Ramachandra Rao, J. -
(1.)The revision petition coming up before us on a reference made by our learned brother, A. Kuppuswami, J., in view of the conflict of the decisions rendered by one of us (Gopala Rao Ekbote, J.) in Kuntahara Had Rao v. Subbalakshmamma, and another rendered by Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., in Iswarlal v. Kursheed Begum.
(2.)The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows-These proceedings arise out of an application filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for eviction under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of the rents. It appears that the suit building originally belonged to the petitioner, that he sold the same to one Ahmed Shareef, the father of the minor respondent, that the said Ahmed Shareef, first let out the premises to one Mohammad Yaseen, and subsequently to the petitioner herein under a regular written lease deed. After the death of Ahmed Shareef, the respondent herein filed an application for eviction for the reasons mentioned above. This application for eviction was resisted by the petitioner alleging that the sale deed executed by him in favour of Ahmed Shareef was only by way of a colletaral security and that the rental deed was executed in lieu of interest. The Rent Controller rejected both the objections raised by the petitioner and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner and that as admittedly no rents were paid by the petitioner to the respondent, there was wilful default in payment of rents and accordingly directed eviction of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal R.A. No. 45 of 1968 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Thereupon the respondent (landlord) herein filed an application I.A. No. 144 of 1968 under section 11 (1) of the Act for directing the petitioner (tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent and in default to pass an order under section 11 (4) of the Act. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and that section 11 of the Act is applicable only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted aud not otherwise. The lower Court, relaying upon a decision of one of us (Gopalarao Ekbote, J.), in Kuntapara Hart Rao v. V. Telukur Subba Lakshmamma, (1966) 1 An.W.R. 122. rejected this objection and directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent of Rs. 1,820 by 13th August, 1968. Against the said order this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner (tenant). The only contention urged by Sri H. S. Gururaja Rao the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that section 11 of the Act is inapplicable where the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and that in the instant case, as the petitioner had disputed the title of the respondent, the provisions of section 11 of the Act, could not be Validly invoked by the respondent. In this connection it is necessary to read the provisions of section 11 of the Act, which are in the following terms ;
"11. (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by the landlord under section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any appeal under section 20, against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller of or the appellate authority as the case may be all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit and continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. (2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1). the Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be, shall on application made to him either by the tenant or by the landlord, and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be paid or deposited. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid the Controller, or the appellate authority as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. (5) The amount deposited under sub-section (1), may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him in that behalf to the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be."
(3.)The appeal provision is contained in section 20 which is to the following effect
"20. (1) Any person aggreived by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secondrabad and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge to the Principal Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. In computing the said period of thirty days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. (2) On such appeal being preferred the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. (3) The appellate authority shall send for records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an apportunity of being heard, and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. Explanation.-The appellate authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Controller grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building. (4) The decision of the appellate authority and subject to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law except as provided in section 22."