THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Second Appeal No. 230 of 2006 Judgment: The appellant herein is the defendant-tenant in O.S. No.135 of 2003. The suit filed by the respondent herein for eviction was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S. No. 135 of 2003 by the I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The appellant herein carried the matter in appeal, but was unsuccessful. The appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 passed in A.S. No. 58 of 2005 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff is the landlord of the premises bearing No.2-1-80 situated at James Street, Secunderabad. The premises was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Earlier, the property was covered by the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act. The plaintiff filed R.C. No.283 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, under Section 4 of the A.P. buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) for fixation of fair rent. The said petition was allowed and the rent was fixed at Rs.3170/- per month to the premises. Thus, the rent was increased with effect from 01.07.2002 payable from the month of August 2002. The tenancy is oral on month to month basis commencing from the first day of the month and ends to the last day of the month as per the English calendar. Alleging that the defendant was not paying rents from October 2002 and became defaulter, the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice dated 27.11.2002 terminated the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 31.12.2002 requesting the defendant to handover the possession of the premises or in default to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards damages. The notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment due was returned. In spite of issuing notice, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plea taken by the defendant is that the suit schedule premises is covered by the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and the Rent Controller is only competent to pass orders of eviction under Section 10 of the Act. It is further contended that as per Section 10 of the Act the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of the tenant as the premises is covered under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. However, it is admitted that the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act and the same was allowed. The specific case of the defendant is that since the appeal filed by him was pending, he cannot be evicted basing on the orders of the Rent Controller. He has also denied that the rents were not paid from the month of October 2001. His case is that he paid Rs.7000/- by way of pay order to the plaintiff for the period from 01.02.2002 to 31.03.2003 and the same was received and acknowledged by the counsel for the plaintiff. The trial Court framed the following issues 1. Whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to try the suit or not? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the tenancy or not? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, if so at what rate? 5. To what relief? The following additional issue was also framed. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent amount to Rs.23,520/- as prayed for? On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Basing on the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that since the rent was fixed at Rs.3170/- the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Holding that though the order passed in RC No.283 of 2000 seems to have been carried in appeal but no stay was granted by the appellate Rent Controller, the trial Court also observed that the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the tenancy of the defendant. Holding that the notice issued by the plaintiff is valid and the tenancy has been terminated, the lower Court ordered the eviction of the defendant. The trial Court also held that merely because the rents were paid to the counsel for the plaintiff that does not come in the way of the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the defendant. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court, the defendant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate Court also having considered the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the building does not fall under the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act in view of the fixation of the fair rent. In para 17 of the judgment, the appellate Court observed as follows. “It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay rent since October 2001 and that the rent is payable @ Rs.500/- p.m. from October 2001 till June 2002 and @ Rs.3,170/- p.m. from July, 2002 onwards. While so, admittedly rents were paid @ Rs.7000/- in February 2002. The plaintiff is entitled to rents @ Rs.500/- p.m. till the end of June, 2002. The rent from January, 2002 to June, 2002 for five months is Rs.2,500/- constituting rent @ Rs.500/- p.m. From July 2002 onwards, rent is payable @ Rs.3,170/-. Out of Rs.7,000/- deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff, rent till June 2002 at Rs.2,500/- and rent for July 2002 @ Rs.3,170/- can be given credit to. A balance of Rs.1,330/- remains with the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.3,170/- from July, 2002 onwards. Therefore it shall be considered that the defendant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.3,170/- from August, 2002 till the date of suit. The plaintiff shall be entitled to rent @ Rs.3,170/- p.m. till the date of suit. The trial Court therefore is justified in decreeing the suit to the extent of arrears of rent. I agree with the finding of the trial Court in this regard.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the orders passed by this Court in CRP No.1471 of 2006 today, confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller enhancing the rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.3170/- per month payable from July 2002, it is clear that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The only point argued by Sri Prakash Reddy in this appeal is that even if a decree of eviction is passed, the tenant cannot be evicted unless the procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the Act is followed and the tenant is entitled to raise the issue about the non- executable of the decree before the executing Court. I am not inclined to express any opinion on this point. It is crystal clear that once the building is out of the purview of the Act, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decree the suit and both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has issued statutory notice as required under Section 106 of the TP Act and accordingly the plaintiff’s suit has to be decreed and the findings of the Courts below since based on proper appreciation of evidence, there is no need to disturb the same. In view of the allowing of CRP No.1471 of 2006 and thereby setting aside the order passed in RA No.269 of 2002, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 30.04.2011 Nsr