Rallabandi Sakuntala Vs. Varanasi Jagannadha Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will positively indicate the wilful nature of default committed in paying or tendering rent as prescribed. while deposit of rent in terms of provisions of act and the rules amounts to valid tender of rent to landlord, the failure to comply with rule 5 (3) requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for deposit of rent in office of controller or appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable controller or appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to person amounts to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of controller within a reasonable time so that rent controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the rules within seven days of such delivery. in the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default.orderb. subhashan reddy, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below refusing police protection. the plaintiff is the petitioner who has laid a suit for declaration and consequential injunction against the defendant-1st respondent. pending disposal of the suit, temporary injunction was sought for and that was granted in i.a. no. 1385 of 1990. as there was interference by the defendant in spite of the injunction order, oh 17-9-1991, the petitioner had earlier filed w.p. no. 14250 of 1991 in this court seeking orders for police protection. a division bench of this court has disposed of the said writ petition on 30-10-1991 with a direction to the court below to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 c.p.c. seeking police protection and also dispose of i.a. no. 1385 of 1990 on merits expeditiously. thereafter, the petitioner had filed i.a. no. 1139 of 1991 before the court below for granting police protection to implement the injunction orders. but curiously, the court below has refused the same on the ground that as the injunction petition was not disposed of within 30 days as contemplated under rule 3-a of order 39 c.p.c. the injunction order has become non est and as such, the question of granting police protection does not arise. for this proposition, the court below has relied on a decision of this court in a.p. state financial corporation v. ch.s.k. nagaraju, 1988 (1) alt 969. but, in the said decision, the a.p. amendment to central rule has not been adverted to. for the delay caused by the court in disposing of injunction application which may be due to several reasons, if the time of one month lapses, it does not mean to say that the injunction order becomes non est. the purport of rule 3-a of order 39 c.p.c. is only to ensure that once injunction is granted by the court below, every step has to be taken to dispose of the same within 30 days, but there cannot be any default clause read into the said provision to the effect that if the injunction petition is not disposed of within 30 days, then the said order becomes non est. if the injunction petition is not disposed of by the court below within the above stipulated time, the party suffering the same has to agitate and if necessary by invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under article 227 of the constitution. but by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that merely because the injunction petition could not be disposed of by the court within 30 days, the injunction will become non est? the injunction granted by a court will remain in force until it is vacated either for the default of the party obtaining the same or on merits. until then, such an injunction order will be in operation and so long as the injunction is in operation and if there is a complaint that there is a breach of the same, it is the duty of the civil court to see that the injunction orders are implemented. otherwise, the very rule of law will be at stake. the injunction orders are protective orders and a law-abiding party approaches the court of law and if injunction subsists, it has got to be honoured and any breach shall be seriously viewed.2. in the circumstances, the order of the court below is set aside and the police protection is granted as sought for in i.a. no. 1139 of 1991. it is also directed that the court below shall dispose of i.a. no. 1385 of 1990 within one month from the date of receipt of this order without granting undue adjournments. it is open to the court below to dispose of the said application should there be any wilful dodging on the part of the plaintiff.3. the revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court below refusing police protection. The plaintiff is the petitioner who has laid a suit for declaration and consequential injunction against the defendant-1st respondent. Pending disposal of the suit, temporary injunction was sought for and that was granted in I.A. No. 1385 of 1990. As there was interference by the defendant in spite of the injunction order, oh 17-9-1991, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 14250 of 1991 in this Court seeking orders for police protection. A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition on 30-10-1991 with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking police protection and also dispose of I.A. No. 1385 of 1990 on merits expeditiously. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 1139 of 1991 before the Court below for granting police protection to implement the injunction orders. But curiously, the Court below has refused the same on the ground that as the injunction petition was not disposed of within 30 days as contemplated under Rule 3-A of Order 39 C.P.C. the injunction order has become non est and as such, the question of granting police protection does not arise. For this proposition, the Court below has relied on a decision of this Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Ch.S.K. Nagaraju, 1988 (1) ALT 969. But, in the said decision, the A.P. Amendment to Central Rule has not been adverted to. For the delay caused by the Court in disposing of injunction application which may be due to several reasons, if the time of one month lapses, it does not mean to say that the injunction order becomes non est. The purport of Rule 3-A of Order 39 C.P.C. is only to ensure that once injunction is granted by the Court below, every step has to be taken to dispose of the same within 30 days, but there cannot be any default clause read into the said provision to the effect that if the injunction petition is not disposed of within 30 days, then the said order becomes non est. If the injunction petition is not disposed of by the Court below within the above stipulated time, the party suffering the same has to agitate and if necessary by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. But by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that merely because the injunction petition could not be disposed of by the Court within 30 days, the injunction will become non est? The injunction granted by a Court will remain in force until it is vacated either for the default of the party obtaining the same or on merits. Until then, such an injunction order will be in operation and so long as the injunction is in operation and if there is a complaint that there is a breach of the same, it is the duty of the Civil Court to see that the injunction orders are implemented. Otherwise, the very rule of law will be at stake. The injunction orders are protective orders and a law-abiding party approaches the Court of law and if injunction subsists, it has got to be honoured and any breach shall be seriously viewed.

2. In the circumstances, the order of the Court below is set aside and the police protection is granted as sought for in I.A. No. 1139 of 1991. It is also directed that the Court below shall dispose of I.A. No. 1385 of 1990 within one month from the date of receipt of this order without granting undue adjournments. It is open to the Court below to dispose of the said application should there be any wilful dodging on the part of the plaintiff.

3. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.