Smt. M Venkata Seshamma B.Sc, LL.B.,

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER :: AT VIJAYAWADA

Present : Smt. M.Venkata Seshamma, Rent controller-cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Monday, this the 01st day of May, 2017.

R.C.C. No.25/2016 Between :

M/s.Mounica Fancy Stores, Rep.by its Proprietor, Praveen Kumar, S/o Sumar Malji, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Vijayawada and Vijayawada JCJC. …Petitioner.

And:

K.Jaya Anjaneya Mahesh Kumar, Son of late.Dharma Raju, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Business, C/o.VSR Agencies, Main Road, Machilipatnam Krishna District.…Respondent.

This petition is coming before me on 24.04.2017 for consideration in the presence of Sri Ch.Damodara Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri Tirumani Paramesh, Advocate for Respondent and upon hearing and perusal of the material on record, and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1)This petition is filed by Petitioner under Section 8(5) of the

A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1960 to grant permission to make deposit the monthly rents for the months of January, February and March, 2016 at the rate of Rs.2,640/- per month rent towards tenanted property and also future rents into this Hon’ble court.

2)The brief averments of the petition are that the respondent is the owner of the property bearing the Door

No.11-40-2/4, situated in Pulipati vari street, Vijayawada-2 which is constructed about more than 25 years more fully details in the schedule annexed hereto and as such it is governed by the provisions of A.P Act XV of 1960 wherein the petitioner is the tenant. The petitioner is a non-residential tenant in shop No.3 on an understanding to pay a sum of Rs.2,640/- towards rent payable at the end of every tenancy month which corresponds to English calendar month. Whenever the petitioner paid rents, he is obtaining receipts from the respondent. Originally, the mother of the respondent Smt

K.Surya Kumari Nagaratnamma was the owner of the said property and she let out the same to the petitioner about 16 years back. Since then the petitioner is the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said shop paying the rents to the mother of the respondent i.e., Smt

K.Surya Kumari Nagaratnamma who used to issue rent receipts to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the other of the respondent died, during her life time she executed a Will dated 26.12.2004. After the death of Smt

K.Surya Kumari Nagaratnamma, respondent and his brother by name

Jagadeesh came to the petitioner and informed him about the death of their mother and execution of Will by her, by showing the said Will

dt. 26.12.2004. According to the recitals of the said Will, the tenanted

property fell to the respondent’s share and consequently the respondent and his brother requested the petitioner to pay the rents to the respondent i.e., K.Jaya ANjaneya Mahesh Kumar only.

Accordingly, since then, the petitioner has been regularly paying the rents to the respondent i.e., K.Jaya Anjaneya Mahesh Kumar for which the respondent is passing rent receipts. The petitioner is a faithful tenant and enhancing the rents from time to time according to the respondent’s will and pleasure. For the last time, the respondent collected the rent for the December, 2015 and passes a receipt bearing No.425 dt.09.01.2016 for Rs.2,640/-. While collecting the said rent the respondent has demanded the petitioner to enhance the rent from Rs.2,640/- to Rs.6,000/- per month for which the petitioner did not accept as the lease already granted is ending by 31.03.2017 and as such the petitioner agreed to enhance the rent from 01.04.2017 by 20%, but not abnormally, then the respondent grew wild and openly proclaimed that he knew all the ways and means to get the abnormal enhancement of rent from petitioner. Accordingly, he did not come to collect the rents from months of January, 2016. As the respondent is resident of Machilipatnam, he is in the habit of coming over to

Vijayawada every month according to his convenience for collecting the rents from the petitioner and other tenants. But he did not turn up to collect the rents for the month of January, 2016. As the petitioner refused his demand to enhance the rent abnormally he is not coming to collect the rents. Even when the petitioner requested him to receive the rents by phone, he used to give reply evasively. Thus having scented the evil design of the respondent, the petitioner has sent the rent for the month of January, 2016 amounting to Rs.2,640/- through money order on 10.02.2016. But, the respondent deliberately refused to receive the said money order and consequently the said money order returned to the petitioner. The tenanted property is constructed about 25years back and the monthly rent is about

Rs.2,640/-, as such the tenanted property is governed by the A.P Act 15 of 1960. As per the clear and mandatory provisions of the said act, the respondent is under clear obligation to receive the rents and to issue receipts. Here the respondent has deliberately refused to receive the rents for the month of January, 2016 when the petitioner tried to pay the same also refused there to when he sent through money order. On 24.02.2016, the petitioner issued a legal notice through his counsel demanding the respondent to intimate his bank name and account number within 10 days after receipt of the legal notice to deposit the rent for the month of January, 2016 and future rents, into the said bank account. If he fails to intimate the account number and name of the bank, that he has no other option except to sent the future rents through money order after deducting the money order commission and then to file a Rent Controller case against respondent, seeking permission to deposit rents into the Hon’ble Rent

Controller. On receipt of the legal notice issued by the petitioner through his counsel, the respondent himself sent a reply notice dt.03.03.2016 stating that he will receive the rent under protest. As such the petitioner has sent the rent for the month of January by one money order and rent for the month of February, 2016 to another money order sent on 10.03.2016, even without deducting money order commission. But, the respondent has deliberately refused to receive two money orders and consequently both the money orders returned back to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition seeking permission of this Hon’ble court to deposit the rents from 01.01.2016 onwards into this Hon’ble court. The petitioner has complied the mandatory obligations casted on him as per Sec.8 of A.P.Act XV of 1960.

3)The respondent filed his counter by denying the allegations and further submitted that in shop No.3 on an understanding to pay a sum of Rs.2,640/- towards rent payable at the end of every tenancy month which corresponds to English calendar month, and he is obtaining receipts, and that the respondent and his brother requested the petitioner to pay the rents to the respondent only land that since then the petitioner has been regularly paying the rents to the respondent and obtaining receipts and that the petitioner is a faithful tenant and enhancing the rents from time to time according to the respondent’s will and pleasure and that for the last time the respondent collected the rent for the month of December 2015 and passed a receipt for Rs.2,640/- on 09.01.2016 are false.

While collecting the said rent the respondent has been demanded the petitioner to enhance the rent from Rs.2,640/- to Rs.6,000/- per month for which the petitioner did not accept, as the lease is already granted is ending by 31.03.2017 and as such the petitioner agreed to enhance the rent from 01.04.2017 by 20% but not abnormally and that the respondent grew wild and openly proclaimed that he knew all the ways and means to get the abnormal enhancement of rent and did not come to collect the rent from the month of January 2016, and that when the petitioner requested to receive the rent by phone, he used to give reply evasively, and that having scanted the evil design the petitioner has sent the rent of Rs.2,640/- through money order on 10.02.2016 and the respondent deliberately refused to receive the said money order are false. The tenanted property is constructed about 25 years back and the monthly rental is about Rs.2,640/- as such the tenanted property is governed by the A.P.Act 15 of 1960, and that the respondent has deliberately refused to receive the rents for the month of January 2016 and the other kindred allegations mentioned in the petition are false. In fact the rent payable to the schedule property i.e., shop no.3 is Rs,5,280/- half to the respondent and remaining half to his elder brother Chiranjeevi Jagadeesh. The fact remains that the schedule property shop No.3 belonged originally to the mother of the respondent by name Suryakumar Naga

Ratnamma along with five shops rooms in the ground floor and five shops in the first floor. Shop No.3 which is shown in the schedule property was let out by the mother of the respondent to one Praveen

Kumar and after her death, the shop Nos.1,2 and eastern half of shop

No.3 in the ground floor and corresponding shops on the 1st floor fell to the share of the brother of the respondent by Kantheti

Ch.Jagadeesh and shop Nos.4 & 5 and the western half of shop no.3 and correspondent shops on the 1st floor fell to the share of this respondent Kantheti J A Mahesh Kumar. Though the business was shown in the name of Mounica Fancy Stores, rep. by its Proprietor

Praveen Kumar, practically the business is being run by Sha Govind

Kumar Jain, son of Sumarmal Jee, resident of Vijayawada. The said

Govind Kumar Jain has signed on the rent agreement dt.01.04.2011 and 01.04.2013 both in favour of the respondent and his brother

Chiranjeevi Jagadeesh, apart from signing on the receipts. Praveen

Kumar left Vijayawada and left the business to his brother Govind

Kumar Jain who is now running the business. The rent payable for the schedule property is not Rs.2,640/-. The total rent payable for the eastern half and western held comprising shop No.3 and Rs.2,640 +

Rs. Rs.2,640/- payable to K.Ch.Jagadeesh and K.J.A.Mahesh Kumar respectively. The half share is payable to this respondent’s western half portion in the schedule property. The remaining half share payable to the eastern half portion in the schedule property payable to K.Chiranjeevi Jagadeesh is Rs.2,640/-. The total rent payable to the schedule property is Rs.5,280/-, but not Rs.2,640/- as alleged in the petition. As the rent for the schedule property is Rs.5,280/-, A.P. Rent

Control Act has no application and the petition is liable to be rejected on this score alone as the petitioner mischievously shown both western half and eastern held as one shop. In fact they are two separate independent tenants to K.Ch.Jagadeesh and K.J.A.Mahesh

Kumar. The petitioner shown the whole shop No.3 in the schedule . it is not correct. Only western half of the shop is portion of Mahesh, whereas eastern half share is the portion of Jagadeesh. The petitioner has shown eastern boundary as Jagadesh, which is not correct. He should have shown eastern boundary as the remaining half of the shop No.3 belonging to K.Ch.Jagadeesh as per the agreement dt.01.04.2011. Hence, the petitioner should have filed R.C.C. in respect of the western half share of the shop no.3 and the monthly rent for western half is Rs.2,640/-. Hence, the petitioner should have filed R.C.C in respect of the western half share of the shop No.3 and the monthly rent for western half is Rs.2,640/-. So also the rent for eastern half is Rs.2,640/-. The petitioner is collecting receipt from the

Mahesh from April 2011 i.e., 01.04.2011 for Rs.2,200/-, for the western half of the schedule property it was enhanced to Rs.2,640/- from 01.04.2013 for western half share only as the receipt is super scribed as “half share”. So also the petitioner has to execute a lease deed by enhancing the rent at 20% on the existing rent from 01.04.2015. the petitioner picked up a quarrel with brother of the respondent by name K.Ch.Jagadeesh. when he asked for the execution of separate rent agreement for the period commencing from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017 and the petitioner dragged on the matter by saying cock and bul stories till December, 2015 and thereafter he committed willful default in payment of rent and thereby liable for eviction from the western half of the schedule property to which respondent is entitled. So also to his brother for eastern side property out of the petition schedule property. The brother of the respondent also given a registered notice through his advocate to the petitioner. In the mean while, there was another agreement dt.01.04.2013 i.e., two agreements separately. One in favour of Mahesh and one in faovur of Jagadeesh and these agreements were duly signed by Govind Kumar Jain, who is the brother of Praveen Kumar Jain. Originally Praveen Kumar Jain took lease from the respondent’s mother, later on, Govinda Kumar is continuing business after Praveen Kumar Jain left Vijayawada. This respondent has every reason to believe that the signatures, hence dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equality.

4)Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the petition and other material on record.

5)Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the petitioner can be permitted to deposit rents from April, 2016 till date at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and also future rents into court as prayed by him?”

POINT:-

6)In support of the case of petitioner, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the

Copy of Registration certificate issued by Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer,Vijayawada-1 division in the name of the petitioner; Ex.P2 is

Office copy of the petitioner’s statutory notice to respondent dated 15.05.2016; Ex.P3 is the Postal acknowledgment signed by respondent dated 17.05.2016; Ex.P4 is the money order receipt of

Rs.2000/- sent to the respondent dated 25.05.2016 and Ex.P5 is the refused money order.

7)The petitioner as PW.1 filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating his pleadings of petition. The documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P5 is corroborating with the oral evidence of PW.1 that he is tenant of schedule property, and he paid rents at rate of Rs.2,000/- per month till March, 2016 to respondent/ landlady, but as she refused to receive the rents from him for months from April, 2016 as such he followed the due procedure contemplated under Section 8(5) of A.P. Buildings Act and filed this petition. The scope of the petition filed under section 8(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease,

Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is very limited and in this petition, this Court has to consider whether there is jural relationship between the parties and if it is in positive, then whether the petitioner followed due procedure contemplated under Section 8(5) of A.P.

Buildings Act. The Petitioner himself admitted that he is tenant and respondent is landlady of the schedule property and he has been doing business in the schedule property and it was supported by document under Ex.P1 and he regularly paid rents till March,2016 to respondent but he only refused to receive rents from April, 2016 onwards, so, he issued registered notice Ex.P2 to respondent requesting him to give his account number to deposit the rents into her account, but she refused it hence he sent money order of

Rs.2,000/- for April 2016 rent under Ex.P4 and she refused it under

Ex.P5. So, as seen from the documents Exs.P2 to P5, the petitioner could establish that he followed the due procedure contemplated under section 8 of the Act establishing his bonafides by tendering rents to respondent. The pleadings of petitioner and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P5 remained unchallenged and unrebutted as the respondent remained exparte. So, from the above discussion, this court concludes that the petitioner can be permitted to deposit the admitted rents from April, 2016 onwards as prayed by him.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

8)In result, this petition is allowed without costs permitting the petitioner to deposit rents at rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from

April, 2016 till date of this order and also future rents at same rate on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.

Directly typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 01st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

RENT CONTROLLER –CUM -IV ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PETITIONER :RESPONDENT :

PW.1 : Sikhakolli Praveen Kumar.NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER :

Ex.P1--Copy of Registration certificate issued by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer,Vijayawada-1 division in the name of the petitioner

Ex.P215.05.2016 Office copy of the petitioner’s statutory notice to respondent.

Ex.P317.05.2016 Postal acknowledgment signed by respondent

Ex.P425.05.2016Money order receipt of Rs.2,000/- sent to the respondent

Ex.P5 --Refused money order

RESPONDENT : -NIL-

Sd/- Smt. M. Venkata Seshamma,

RC-IV AJCJ, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada AT, KRISHNA

Presided Over by Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma

OS.No.166/2017

Sd. Jeevamma

Address: Indian, aged 80 years, RO. D.No. 18-7-193, Kuddus Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

VERSUS

Arava Gannemma alias Velangani Address: Indian, aged 70 years, RO.D.no.18-7-194, Kuddus Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2:Yerramala Samson Indian, aged 59 years, RO.D.No.18-7-192 Kuddus Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District

Advocate for : K.V.Ratnakar

ORDER

Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit against D1 and D2 as settled out of court and pronounced the same the memo dt.24.04.17. by plaintiff is recorded. Hence, this suit is dismissed without costs in interest of justice.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this day

Date : 24-04-2017

Sd/- M.V.Seshamma

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, KRISHNA

IN THE COURT OF

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada AT, KRISHNA

Presided Over by Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma

OS.No.75/2015

Bhavirisetti Hemanth Kumar Address: Hindu, aged about 39 years, Flat 308, Aiswarya Deluxe Flats, Maruthinagar, Vijayawada.

VERSUS

A. kSujatha Address: Hindu, aged about 95 years, Side of Kranthi Transport, Maruthinagar, Vijayawada

Advocate for : Ch.U.M.R.

JUDGMENT

Pw-1 absent, costs not paid no representation, As seen from the docket, the plaintiff is not evincing interest to proceed with suit, hence, PW-1 evidence is eschewed and this suit is dismissed in interest of justice and in circumstances of case.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this day

Date : 26-04-2017

Sd/- M.V.Seshamma

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, KRISHNA