ORDER
1. The revision petitioner assails the judgment-dated 24-7-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No.56 of 2000.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in RC No.231 of 1996. The late mother of the respondents herein filed RC No.231 of 1996 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises and committed wilful default in paying the rents. That petition was resisted by filing a counter denying inter alia the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se
between the parties by taking a specific plea that the property in question was gifted to her by the maternal grand father of the respondents under an oral gift and thereby setting up title over the property.
3. While the matter stood, thus, the mother of the respondents herein filed IA No.853 of 1996 under Section 11(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (The Act for brevity) seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from November, 1995 to September, 1996 in a sum of Rs. 4,400/- at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. That petition was resisted by filing a counter by the petitioner herein. By an order dated 30-4-1997, the petition was allowed directing the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from November, 1995 to September, 1996 and a further direction was given therein to also deposit the subsequent monthly rents on or before 10th of the succeeding month, without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the main case. Thereafter the respondents herein also filed another petition in IA No.898 of 1999 under Section 11(4) of the Act requesting the Rent Controller to stop all further proceedings as envisaged under Section 11(4) of the Act and to pass eviction orders against the respondent therein who is the petitioner herein and to put the petitioners forthwith in physical vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on the premise that the respondent therein willfully withheld the rents from March, 1999 to November, 1999. That petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 8-2-2000 directing the respondent therein to put the petitioners in the physical vacant possession of the premises. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner filed the appeal in RA No.56 of 2000 before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Under the impugned judgment dated 24-7-2000, the learned Chief Judge
dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same as aforesaid, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner contends that as on the date of filing of the petition under Section 11(4) of the Act there were no dues and the revision petitioner has cleared all the dues.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that even if the rents were deposited since the Challans were not filed into the Court and as necessary information was not furnished to the respondents, there has been non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules and therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted.
6. Before adverting to the respective contentions on either side, it may be mentioned here that the revision petitioner has been disputing the title of Smt Noorjahan Begum, the mother of the respondents herein. The specific plea taken up by the revision petitioner in her counter filed resisting the eviction petition in RC No.231 of 1996 was that she worked under the late father of Smt. Noorjahan Begum till his death and he gifted the schedule property to her under an oral gift in her favour and therefore, there has been no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and late Noorjahan Begum. While the main eviction in RC No.231 of 1996 was pending, late Noorjahan Begum, the mother of the respondents filed IA No.853 of 1996 under Section 11(1) of the Act. By an order dated 30-4-1997 the learned Rent Controller directed the revision petitioner Smt Ameena Bee to deposit the arrears of rents for the period between November, 1995 to September, 1996 in a sum of Rs. 4,400/-and further directed her to deposit the subsequent monthly rents on or before the 10th of every succeeding month. IA No.898
of 1999 was filed under Section 11(4) of the Act seeking a direction to stop all further proceedings as envisaged under Section 11(4) of the Act on the premise that the revision petitioner Smt., Ameena Been again wilfully withheld the rents from March, 1999 to November, 1999. That application was allowed by a cryptic order dated 8-2-2000 holding that the counter affidavit filed by the respondent therein was not convincing and as she failed to comply the previous order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11(1) of the Act, no tenable grounds could be seen in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit at the end of para-3 it has been specifically averred that she made all attempts to implement the orders of the Rent Controller passed in IA No.853 of 1996 and that because of her old age she could not deposit the rents within the stipulated period and that however, she denied the allegations that she wilfully defaulted and flouted the orders passed in IA No.853 of 1996 and that she filed the challans to show that she had deposited the arrears of rents and monthly rentals as directed by the learned Principal Rent Controller to prove her bona fides till that date and there was no default of any such rents.
7. This specific plea taken by the revision petitioner has not weighed with the learned Rent Controller. No enquiry about the truth or otherwise of the said statement of deposit of the rents into the Bank under challans was in fact made. Even the consequences of not filing the challans into the Court, so as to enable the Rent Controller to issue necessary notice to the petitioner have also not been considered. On the mere ground that the reasons mentioned in the counter were notconvincing, the IA No.898 of 1999 was allowed. The same order was upheld by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad holding that the pleas raised by the tenant in the appeal
were not tenable as the learned Rent Controller held that there has been jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inter se and the tenant had not paid the rents, and that when that petition was allowed no appeal was preferred by the tenant against that order passed under Section 11 of the Act and therefore, he found no merits in the appeal. It is obvious that both the Courts below have not considered the plea of the revision petitioner that she was not in arrears and she deposited the arrears of rents and monthly rentals as directed by the Principal Rent Controller till date.
8. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner filed the Triplicate receipts of the Challans along with a Memo showing the dates of deposit of the rents into the Bank. The period of default as mentioned in the petition in IA No.898 of 1999 was from March, 1999 to November, 1999 and the default amount was Rs.3600/-. As can be seen from these challans that on 8-7-1999 an amount of Rs.2,400/- was deposited for the months of February, 1999 to July, 1999 and from August, 1999 onward tilt October, 2000 amounts were deposited regularly for every month on or before the stipulated date viz., the 10th of the succeeding month. There is no denial of the deposit made by the revision petitioner into the Bank, by the learned Counsel for the respondents after having perused the memo filed in this regard by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mentioning inter alia the dates of deposits annexing therewith the Triplicate receipts of the challans. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that no information regarding such deposit having been furnished to the Court and no intimation having been given to the respondents, such deposits cannot be taken into consideration. This contention would be adverted to a little latter at the appropriate time. Pausing here for a moment that it is appropriate to consider
one glaring aspect emanating from the record. In IA No.853 of 1996 which was filed under Section 11(1) of the Act by late Noorjahan Begum seeking a direction to deposit the arrears of rents from November, 1995 to September, 1996, the learned Rent Controller after having heard on either side, passed a specific order to the following effect:
“In the result, the petition is allowed directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent for the months of November, 1995 to September, 1996 amounting to Rs. 4,400/- on or before 5-5-1996. The petitioner is also directed not to withdraw the above amount until the disposal of the main RC. The respondent is also further directed to deposit the subsequent monthly rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the main case.”
9. Elsewhere in the order at the end of Para 5 it was observed that if the respondent was able to establish title in the main case, she could withdraw the amount, which had been deposited in that case. The observation and the direction at the end that the respondent should further deposit the subsequent monthly rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the main case would amply show that the main contentious issue about the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inter se has not been decided conclusively. In view of the judgment of this Court rendered in Changan Lal v. Narasing Pershad, , it becomes obligatory on the part of the Rent Controller that even an application filed under Section 11(1) of the Act seeking deposit of the rents pending disposal of the eviction petition, in the event of denial of title and the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties inter se, to
conduct enquiry in regard thereto and to give a finding thereon. If such a finding is given by the Rent Controller in an application filed under Section 11(1) of the Act, there is nothing to give again that finding in the main eviction petition. Therefore, the contentious issue between the parties inter se about the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant is got to be decided, not in a summary way, but by holding a regular enquiry even in an application filed under Section 11(1) of the Act before directing the tenant-respondent to deposit the rents. Oblivious of this clear position of law, the learned Rent Controller in IA No.853 of 1996 passed an order directing the respondent therein to deposit the rents without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the main case and directing the petitioner therein not to withdraw the amount deposited into the Court and holding further that if the respondent therein was able to establish her title in the main case, she could withdraw the amount deposited by her in the main case. In view of this peculiar situation created under the impugned orders in IA No.853 of 1996, without deciding the contentious issue of the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties inter se, if on the mere ground that the revision petitioner who is obliged under Rule 5 read with Rule 16 of the Rules to file the challans into the Court, and within seven days from such filing, the Court should inform the petitioner about such deposit and his failure to do so, amounts to non-compliance of the order, it would result in travesty of justice in my considered view.
10. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the judgment of this Court in Hari Prasad Badruka v. Tellukunta Laxmi and others , being relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents wherein it is held that the conduct of
the tenant who failed to file the challans of the deposit of rents into the Court immediately or within a reasonable period and having failed to issue notice to the landlord in that regard nor paid the process fee for sending such notice to the landlord by Court which is contrary to the Rule 5(4) read with Rule 16 of the Rules would amount to committing wilful default in payment of rents, has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that there has been non-compliance of Rule 5(4) and Rule 16 of the Rules on the side of the revision petitioner and the revision petition in that view of the matter should be dismissed merits no consideration.
11. It is obvious that the rents for the period between March, 1999 to November, 1999 in a sum of Rs.3,600/- have been deposited under various challans. But unfortunately the factum of deposit has not been informed to the Court by filing the Triplicate challans into the Court. This fact of deposit in my considered view would have been revealed clearly, had the learned Rent Controller cared to conduct an enquiry in regard thereto. Without considering the specific plea taken in the counter filed by her, by holding that the reasons mentioned in the counter were not convincing, the learned Rent Controller failed to exercise his jurisdiction in the manner expected of under law.
12. The learned Chief Judge having been swayed away by the fact that since the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act which has become final since not been appealed against and as there has been non-compliance of the said order, nothing therefore remains to be considered in an application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act, dismissed the appeal.
13. As discussed by me supra, since no clear finding of the existence of the jural
relationship of landlord and tenant was in fact given by the Rent Controller in IA No.853 of 1996 any order on the ground of non-deposit of rents or on the ground that there has been non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules, even though the rents have been deposited regularly on or before the stipulated dates, if a tenant is directed to be evicted, it would result in travesty of justice. The main dispute or the contentious issue between the parties is still got to be decided. The deposit has been ordered only without prejudice to the various contentions raised by the tenant in the application about the non-existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and denial of title by pleading title in herself under an oral gift. The truth or otherwise of the plea is got to be decided not in a summary way, but by holding an enquiry in regard thereto as enjoined under various provisions of the Rent Control Act.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge as well as the order of the learned Principal Rent Controller in IA No.898 of 1999 are hereby set-aside. The learned Principal Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the enquiry in the main RC No.231 of 1996 and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs.