NAGNATH RAVENSIDHAPPA CHOLKHANE Vs. OSMAN SAHEB MOHAMED SAHEB PANGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment as they involve a common question of law affecting the jurisdiction of an Assistant Judge who heard and disposed of appeals under the Hyderabad (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to for brevitys sake as Hyderabad Rent Act. In all these petitions the tenant is the petitioner and the landlord is the respondent. These three revision applications arise out of three proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent in the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter. The petitioner has been a tenant of a small shop of which the respondent is the landlord since the year 1960 and though the rent of the suit shop was different and varied from time to time ultimately by a rent note of 22nd October, 1968 the rent of the premises came to be fixed at Rs. 26/- p.m. The petitioner appears to have fallen in arrears of rent for nearly 10 months as a result of which the respondent served upon him a notice dated 9th March, 1970 calling upon him to tender the entire arrears of rent. Since there was no compliance with this notice, the respondent filed a small cause suit which was numbered as 41 of 1970 on 31st March, 1970 and that suit was decreed on 23rd November, 1970 for the entire amount claimed. Similarly the suit for arrears of rent from March to December 1970 was filed by the landlord and in that suit the entire amount due was deposited by the petitioners along with the written statement.

(2.) The respondent thereafter filed an application which was numbered as 1970/RCA/16 before the Rent Controller under the Hyderabad Rent Act for possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in the payment of rent. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his judgment and order dated 13th September, 1971. Against this the respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Judge at Latur and this appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1971 was allowed by the learned Assistant Judge by his judgment and order dated 27th July, 1973. Against this order Civil Revision Application No. 5132 of 1973 has been filed.

(3.) We must also mention that almost parallel with these proceedings there were two other proceedings one of them was an application bearing No. 1971/RAC/3 filed by the landlord for eviction on the ground that there was default in payment of arrears of rent and that application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 13th September, 1971 on which date he also dismissed the earlier application. Against this the respondent preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1971 which was allowed by the Assistant Judge by his judgment and order dated 27th July, 1973. Against this order of the learned Assistant Judge the petitioner has preferred Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1973.