CRP/2458/2007 of Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy Vs Grandhi Subrahmanyam on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

This revision is by the landlord, who had opposed R.C.C.No.20 of2001 filed by the respondent/tenant under Section 8 of the Andhra PradeshBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act seeking to deposit the rentto the credit of the rent control Court.

2. While the respondent/tenant tried to sustain the said application filedunder Section 8 of the aforesaid Act by contending that the rent payable isonly Rs.900/- per month, the petitioner/landlord claimed that the rent payable is Rs.1,200/- per month and as such, the matter is beyond the purview of theAct in view of G.O.Ms.No.636 dated 29.12.1983. Learned Rent Controllerframed point No.1 for consideration apart from other points wherein heconsidered the maintainability of the respondent’s petition seeking deposit ofrents. The evidence produced before the learned Rent Controller showedthat even according to the tenant a sum of Rs.900/- + Rs.300/- is payablebut the tenant claimed that the said Rs.300/- is payable with respect toservices and amenities and does not form part of the rent.

The Landlord, on the other hand, claimed that the aggregate amount payableby the tenant being Rs.1,200/- per month, the entire amount counts for therent and the same being above Rs.1,000/- per month ceiling fixed underG.O.Ms.No.636 dated 29.12.1983, referred to above, the Rent Control Courtwould have no jurisdiction to entertain the tenant’s application. Learned RentController, however, did not accept the landlord’s contention and decidedpoint No.1 in favour of the respondent/tenant and allowed the RC. On appeal,by the petitioner/landlord, the lower appellate Court concurred with the findingof the trial Court and dismissed the rent appeal. This revision questions thecorrectness of both the said orders.

3. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent,though served, nobody appears on his behalf.

4. It is evident that both the Courts below have failed to notice the purportof Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is extracted below:

“105. Lease defined.- A lease of immovable property is a transfer ofa right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express orimplied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised,or of money, a share of crops, service, or any other thing of value, tobe rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor bythe transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.

Lessor, Lessee, premium and rent defined. – The transferor iscalled the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price iscalled the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing tobe so rendered is called the rent.”

5. As would be evident therefrom that while defining the lessor, lessee,premium and rent, it is categorically provided that any money, share,services or the other thing of value, which the tenant is required to render iscalled rent. Both the Courts below have failed to notice the above and failedto apply the same to the facts of the present case, as the amount of Rs.900/-+ Rs.300/- aggregating to Rs.1,200/- payable by the respondent/tenant wouldqualify in the definition of rent, as envisaged under the aforesaid provision.The term ‘rent’, therefore, has been held to include all charges payable by thetenant every month towards use and occupation of the premises bywhatever name, it is called rent and based on the quantum of rent, thejurisdiction of the Rent Controller vis-à-vis the civil Court would bedetermined.

6. The said aspect is also authoritatively set at rest by the Supreme [1]Court in PUSPASEN GUPTA v. SUSMA GHOSEwherein it isspecifically held that rent includes not only what is directly understood but allpayments in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord underthe terms of tenancy also form part of the rent. To the same effect is also adecision of a learned single Judge of this Court in M/S. POOONAMCHAND

[2]v. M/S. KANCHAN CYCLE TRADING CO.

7. Applying the tests aforesaid to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellateauthority have failed to apply the appropriate test and have erroneouslycome to the conclusion that the rent controller has jurisdiction to entertain therespondent’s application, though the rent of Rs.1,200/- is beyond thejurisdiction of the Rent Controller in terms of G.O.Ms.No.636 dated29.12.1983, referred to above.

Consequently, therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed. Theorders impugned are set aside. The deposits, if any, made by the respondent to the credit of RCC before the learned Rent Controller is permitted to bewithdrawn by the petitioner/landlord without furnishing any security andsubject to the rights of the parties to be agitated before the appropriate Court.As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sincethe respondent has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 28, 2012DSK

_____________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

[1]1990 (2) APLJ (SC) 401990 (2) APLJ (SC) 40

[2]1990 (2) APLJ 931990 (2) APLJ 93