Pasumarthi Appalanarasamma and another vs Chinthati Bhaskara Rao

Mr. Gangadhara Rao, J.—This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff-appellant. He filed a suit against the defendant- tenant for eviction and for vacant possession of the suit house and for mesne profits. The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule house. According to him, it was constructed after 26-8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 are not applicable to the suit house. The defendant took the house on lease in 1964 on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-for 11 months. The defendant paid rent upto January, 1973. The plaintiff issued a notice to him on 1-7-73 terminating the tenancy by the end of July, 1973 and asking the defendant to vacate the premises by that date and also demanding the rent dated from 1-1-73. The defendant issued a reply on 3-8-73 and he also sent an amount of Rs. 280/-by draft for the period from 1-1-1973 till 31-7-1973 at the rate of Rs. 40/-per month. For the subsequent periods the rents were deposited into Court. The plaintiff also contended that be needed the building for his personal use. The petition was insisted by the defendant on a number of grounds. It is unnecessary for me to refer to all of them.

The principal District Munsif, Vijayanagaram held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the building was constructed after 26-8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 did not apply to the suit building. He held that the defendant did not commit wilful dejaul in payment of rent and therefore the notice dated 1-7-73 given by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the tenancy was not valid and binding up on the defendant. He found that the plaintiff did not require the suit house for his personal use or occupation. In the result he field that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to vacate possession of the suit building and therefore he dismissed the suit.

Questioning that decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram. The learned Judge held that the suit house was constructed in 1959 and therefore the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 had no application. He also found that the tenancy was from month to month and the plaintiff gave the notice Ex.A-1 u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 1-7-1973 terminating the tenancy by 31-7-73 and calling upon the defendant to deliver possession of the suit house before that date. He observed that the notice was received by the defendant on 7-7-73. But he observed that the grounds mentioned in the notice for determining the notice i.e., default of payment of rent and for effecting repairs, are not true. Therefore he held that the notice Ex.A-1 dated 1-7-73, was not valid. He found that the defendant sent back draft for the rent upto July, 1973, and for August, 1973 he sent the rent by money order and thereafter he was depositing the rents in the Court. He had that the defendant was not a trespasser and his possession was not wrongful and therefore he was not liable to pay mesnune profit but he had to pay only the rents. In the result he dismissed the appeal. la this second appeal filed by the plaintiff, the substantial question of law that is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when once the lower appellate Court had found that the suit was maintainable and when a notice was given according to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act, the learned Judge, erred in dismissing the suit or the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make out that there was default is payment of rent and also that the house was in need of repairs. It is argued that in a rent control petition these questions may be germine but not in a suit, I agree with this contention. The learned Subordinate Judge has found differ ring with the District Munsif that the house was constructed id 1969 and therefore the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 has no application. He also found the lease was from month to month and the notice Ex.A-1 was given on 1-7-73 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises by the end of July, 1973. Thus the defendant had clear 15 days notice, But on the ground that the allegations made in the notice that there was default of payment of rent and the building needed repairs were not made out, he held that the notice given was not valid. It is not necessary in a suit filed by the landlord against a tenant for eviction that the land lord should establish the reasons for claiming vacant possession of the house. All that is necessary is to give a valid notice as prescribed u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The questions whether the landlord needs the building for his personal occupation, whether there was wilful default in payment of rents and whether the building needs repairs are not relevant in a suit. They are relevant in a petition for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Consequently I have no hesitation in setting aside the decrees of both the lower courts and decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiff. Since the defendant had been depositing the rents in the Court and there is no clinching evidence to show With regard to the quantity of mesne profits, 1 hold that Rs. 40/- per month can be concluded to be the mesne profits to which the plaintiff is entitled to. Accordingly the second appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear his costs in both the lower Courts as well as in this Court. One month''s time is given from to-day for the defendant to vacate the premises.