What is meant by Bonafide Requirement (S.10)?

Ans:  The bonafide requirement of landlord of his premises is the ground for seeking eviction of tenant. The term bonafide means good faith.  That requirment of the landlord should not be a mere desire that means the landlord must require the requirement of his business or it must be an additional requirement for his business.

What is meant by Wilful default (S.10)?

Ans:  “Wilful default” implies intentional violation of obligation to pay rent. Default must be real and not mere technical. It shall be conscious violation of duty or obligation to pay the rents, having knowledge of consequences, which shall follow.

 Write a note about Appeal under Rent Control law?

Ans: S.20: APPEAL:  The person aggrieved by the order of the controller can appeal before Chief judge or Principal subordinate judge as the case may be.  The appellate court upon such appeal may order stay of further proceedings, pending appeal.  The appellate court shall decide the appeal after giving opportunity to party on either side and if necessary making inquiry either personally or through controller shall decide the appeal.  The order of appellate authority is final. The decision of controller is final subject to the order of appellate authority.  Explanation:  The appellate authority may while confirming the order of eviction passed by the controller grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.

Commentary: 1.Appeal is a continuation of original proceedings and the appellate authority will exercise all powers of original authority in applying procedural law and granting releif. A plain reading of S.20 would show there are no restrictions on appellate authority to reverse or modify order of rent controller.  The Appellate authority has powers to confirm, reverse or modify the order of the rent controller.   Sree Datta Agencies, Hyderabad v Dinesh Kumar Kucheria 2008 (5) ALD 344 = 2008 (5)ALT 400.

2. Appellate authority has power of remand. This is integral part of S.20.
3. The appellate authority has power to receive additional evidence if there exist circumstances stated under O.41 R.27. It is not a right of the party.
4. Appeal against interlocutory orders of Rent controller is not maintainable. Revision u/A.227 is maintainable.

Appeal against conviction is not maintainable without deposit of arrears of rent as determined by rent controller.

     5. Appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order if it affects the rights of the parties. Dismissal of interlocutory application by a third party for impleading in the proceedings is appealable as it can’t be said that the order does not affect the rights of the parties. B.Y.Ramulu v Budhan Saheb Mosque Committee, 2002 (3) ALD 377.

     6. Appellant Court being the last court for appreciation on facts should take care to see that the issue with regard to the ground of eviction is considered in a more perspective manner on all aspects and it has to necessarily meet the findings and all the reasons given in the findings of the court below and by giving its own reasons must reverse it by its own findings. Merely giving different independent and its own reasons and dehors the reasons given the by the court below would not be a valid reversal.

Write a note about Revision under Rent Control law?

Ans: S.22 Revision: The High court may, at any time, on the applciaiton of any aggrieved party call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the controller in execution u/S.15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under S.20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or of propreity of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

2)  The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the high court under S.s(1) shall be in its discretion.

Comment: 1. Power of high court in revision under the Act is wider than the power of revision under CPC.

2. It is settled law that admission in a pleading can’t be allowed to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. The tenant admitting in the counter initially filed by him that he was paying rents but receipts were not given by landlord, could not have subsequently sought for an amendment of the counter raising the plea that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them.
3. No revision lies against an order refusing amendment in a pending rent control case. It can be challenged by way of main appeal. This is not an interlocutory order.

Interference when justified:

1. If the courts below misdirected themselves and didn’t consider the evidence in the proper perspective by adverting to the provisions contained in S.10 of the Act, the high court is justified in interfering with concurrent findings.
2. The general rule is revision court can’t interfere with finding of fact. Interference of revisional court can’t be totally ousted not only on the question of law but also on finding of fact provided the said findings of fact provided the said finding was not based on evidence or if the finding is contrary to law.
3. Concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in revision if they suffer from inherent defects and are based on irrelevant material. P.V. Venkata Krishna Rao: 1989 (3) ALT 284.
4. Question of bona fide requirement of landlord, being a mixed question of fact and law, can be gone into in revision by high court. Nallabill Satyanarayna :1999(2) ALD 659.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      What is the fate of proceedings in the event of death by petitioner in rent control case?

Ans: S.24:- Proceedings by or against legal representatives: –

1) Any application made, appeal preferred or proceeding taken under this Act by or against any person, may in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representative.

2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken under this Act by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding, may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives.

Comment: Section 24 of the Act empowers the person to initiate proceedings by or against the legal representative in the event of death of the party. It is stated in Clause (2) of Section 24 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 that any application, appeal or other proceedings could be preferred under this Act, by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding, may, in the event of death of the party, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives. Rule 19 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 prescribes period of limitation of thirty days for bringing legal representatives on record. Rule 19(2) mentions that application can be admitted after expiry of the period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Controller or Appellate Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the time. Nanik Ram vs Bavarlal (Died) : 2004 (6) ALD 200

Abatement of appeal:  During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord died and all his sons were not brought on record.  The court said it is not necessary that all must be brought on record. Another point to be noted that either tenant or landlord can continue the suit even after their death by their legal representatives.  On the death of the original tenant during the pendency of the CRP filed u/r.22 of the Act, one of the LRS of the deceased tenant, in whatever capcity he might have been on record, carried the matter unsuccesfflly  upto the apex court. Other LRs of the orignal tenant contended that they were not brought on record as LRs of original tenant and the proceedings became abated and non-est in the eye of law and therefore execution can’t be don agasint them.  It is rejected as one of the tenant effectively represented the rights. K.Megamal @ M.Meghamal :2006(3)ALD810.