Guduchutlu Lalaiah Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer, (Spl. Tahsildar) (L.A.) - 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 writ petition is filed seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions contained under section. 28-a of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). by memo in re. no. a2-25/84, dated 22-1-1992 the respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on die ground that the amount of compensation was received by the petitioner without protest. in other respects the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent under section 28-a of the act is found to be in order. but the reasons given by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the provisions of section 28-a of the act is neither relevant nor sustainable. for invocation of section 28-a of the act, it does not matter whether the petitioner received the amount of compensation under protest or without protest. the contention of the respondent that the amount was received without protest, which can only be raised when a reference was sought to be made under section 18 of the act, has got no relevance insofar as section 28-a of the act is concerned. the provisions of section 28-a of the act are inserted by the amending act 68 of 1984 on the touch-stone of article 14 of the constitution of india. as the reasons given by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the amount of compensation are not tenable, i set aside the impugned order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the respondent and direct him to consider the application of the petitioner for re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions as contained under section 28-a of the act. it is needless to mention that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the judgment on which reliance is placed before the respondent.2. the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions contained Under Section. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By memo in Re. No. A2-25/84, dated 22-1-1992 the respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on die ground that the amount of compensation was received by the petitioner without protest. In other respects the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent Under Section 28-A of the Act is found to be in order. But the reasons given by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act is neither relevant nor sustainable. For invocation of Section 28-A of the Act, it does not matter whether the petitioner received the amount of compensation under protest or without protest. The contention of the respondent that the amount was received without protest, which can only be raised when a reference was sought to be made Under Section 18 of the Act, has got no relevance insofar as Section 28-A of the Act is concerned. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act are inserted by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As the reasons given by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the amount of compensation are not tenable, I set aside the impugned order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the respondent and direct him to consider the application of the petitioner for re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions as contained Under Section 28-A of the Act. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the judgment on which reliance is placed before the respondent.

2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.