ORDER
1. This is an appeal preferred by a land-lord plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Asifabud dated 30-10-1987 passed in AS No.6 of 1985. By tlie impugned judgment and decree, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. District Munsif’s Court, Sirpur dated 18-2-1985 in OS No.75 of 1983 and consequently dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has come up in this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the appellate Court is in error in holding that the suit itself is not maintainable-He submitted that the suit is maintainable, since the property in question is situated outside the Municipal area. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside
3. From a reading of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, I find that the present appellate filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,275/- towards arrears of rent from 13-10-1980 to 12-9-1983 for 35 months and for mesne profits from 13-9-1983 at Rs. 100/- per month and also for recovery of possession. The trial Court decreed the suit. But, the argument in the appellate Court was that the area where the suit property is situated is covered by the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short “Rent Control Act”) and hence the suit would not be maintainable, whereas
the contention of the plaintiff was that the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the suit schedule properly. But before the appellate Court, both parties submitted that the suit premises leased out to the defendant is situated within Sirpur area of Kagaznagar. It is stated that the Sirpur Paper Mills is situated in an area called Kagaznagar area and the Government notified the area in G.O. Ms. No.412, dated 21-5-1983 and published in A.P. Gazette Extraordinary No.203, dated 3-6-1983. That notification was issued under Section 3 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 read with Section 389-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, Section 389-A reads as under :
“389-A Notified Area :–(1) The Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette declare any local area to be a notified area, for the purpose of application of all or any of the provisions of this Act in the said notified area.”
(2) ………….. Â Â Â Â Â Â …………..
(3) …………… Â Â Â Â Â Â …………..
(4) For the purpose of any provisions of this Act which may be applied or adopted to a notified area the Committee appointed for such area shall be deemed to be a Council under this Act and the area shall be deemed to be a Municipality.”
4. G.O. Ms. No.412 dated 21-5-1983 has been specifically notified in Section 389-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act and if that is so Kagaznagar Area which is a notified area shall be deemed to be a Municipality. From this it follows that the Rent Control Act would be made applicable since Section 1(2)(a) of the Rent Control Act, provides that this Act, except sub-section (2) of Section 3, shall apply to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to all Municipalities in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. From this definition it is clear that Kagaznagar area being a deemed Municipal area under the A.P. Municipalities Act, the Rent Control Act would be applicable, since the Act is made applicable to all the Municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping this principle of law, the appellate Court held that the present suit would not be maintainable against the tenant and accordingly dismissed the suit.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the entire suit could not have been dismissed since for arrears of rent the suit would be maintainable under Section 9 of CPC and there is no provision for recovery of arrears of rent under [he Rent Control Act. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that under the Rent Control Act, the landlord as well seek a direction for depositing the rent by the tenant. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
6. As I have already noticed above the Rent Control Act is applicable to Kagaznagar area which is a notified area under Section 398-A of the Municipalities Act, and if that is so. the Rent Control Act applies to the area in which the suit schedule property is situated. If the Rent Control Act applies, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to file an eviction petition under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, but not a civil suit. Therefore, so far as the relief for eviction is concerned the present suit would not be maintainable since the plaintiff has to lake resort to the Rent Control Act. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant there is no provision under the Rent Control Act for recovery of arrears of rent. When there is no provision under the Rent Control Act, and when Section 9 of CPC is not excluded by the special provision. Section 9 of CPC would be applicable and as such the suit would be maintainable so
far as the recovery of arrears of rent is concerned. As held by the trial Court, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant is not disputed. The fact that the rate of rent is Rs.65/- p.m. and the plaintiff did not receive rent from August 1983 is not disputed by the defendant. His explanation that the plaintiff himself refused to accept the same is disbelieved by the trial Court. As held by the trial Court, the suit amounts are in time. Hence. I find that the trial Court rightly decided the arrears of rent at Rs.2275/- and consequently granted a decree. Since the relief of eviction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the damages as ordered by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the decree of the trial Court so far as it grants damages is liable to be set aside. In this view of the mailer, I pass the order as under:
The appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court regarding recovery of possession is confirmed and the judgment of the appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent at Rs.2275/-is hereby set aside by restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court decree regarding awarding of damages subject to payment of Court fee is also set aside. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.