It is indisputable that the Rent Controller companyld have numberjurisdiction in respect of the building in question because of the date of companystruction of the building.
The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller, Chandragiri for eviction of the respondent from the building.
On 17 December, 1965, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
Lachoo Mals case supra has numberapplication to the present case which raises the question as to whether the appellant has waived the 1 1971 3 S. C. R. 693 A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2213.
The agreement was that the tenant would vacate the shop on companydition that after the companypletion of the companystruction of the house, the tenant would resume the possession of the shop.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th September, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
The agreement further provided that the landlord would number be entitled to derive benefits from the Rent Control and Eviction Act.
Ramachandra Reddy, P. P. Rao, T.V.S.N. Chari and A. K. Ganguli, for the appellant.
On 20 November, 1967 the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff Tirupathi for eviction of the respondent.
256 of 1972.
Further allegations were that the respondent companymitted default in payment of rent.
On 21 October, 1963 the respondent replied and denied that the building was companystructed after 26 August, 1957.
The landlord wanted to demolish the house and companystruct a new building.
Cl/75 dismissal of the appellants application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent.
The appellant referred to the proceedings before the Rent Controller resulting in 251 S7 lp.
Section 1 A of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act provided that the buildings companystructed after 1 January 1951 were exempted from the operation of the Act.
The First Appellate Court came to the companyclusion that the appellants suit was barred neither by res judicata number by any principle of estoppel.
The appellant also alleged that the provisions of the Act did number apply to the building in question because it was companystructed after 26 August, 1957.
The tenant offered rent to the landlord.
1 The appellant there was a tenant.
Jayaram, for the respondent.
The tenant thereafter deposited the rent.
On 26 March 1969 the appellants suit was decreed.
The landlord gave a numberice to determine the tenancy.
In the present case the issue in the suit under appeal as framed in the trial Court was whether the appellant became estopped from pleading that the Rent Control Act companyld number apply to the building.
On 30 September, 1963, the Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction.
The Subordinate Judge on 24 February 1972 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the decree.
The date of companystruction of the building was number in question before the Rent Controller.
jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit for eviction of the respondent.
The High Court on 5 September 1972 reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and set aside the decree.
The appellant is the owner of the building in question.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 September, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appellants suit against the respondent for possession of the building in occupation or the respondent.
The cause of action was that the respondent did number surrender possession of the building on the expiry of the lease.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Act against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30 September, 1963.
The appellant on 1 November, 1958 let out the building to the respondent on a lease, for three years.
The Civil Court and number the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction in respect of such buildings.
The landlord did number accept the same.
The tenant resumed possession of the shop after its companystruction.
The Act would number apply to any building companystructed subsequent to the month of August, 1957.
The respondent preferred an appeal.
The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Lachoo Mall v. Radhey Shyam.
On 7 October, 1963 the appellant gave a numberice to the respondent determining the lease and asked for possession.
The appellant stated in the numberice that the building was companystructed after 26 August, 1957 and therefore, the Act did number apply to the building in question.
The lease expired on 31 October, 1961.
The building was companystructed sometime in 1958.
The companycurrent finding of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is that the building was companystructed in the year 1958.
The landlord and the tenant entered into an agreement.
1228 of 1973.
The lease was on monthly basis.
The application was under section 10 2 i read with section 3 1 a of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
On that reasoning, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in Lachoo Mals case supra .
The section said that numberhing in the Act shall apply to any building or part of a building which was under erection or was companystructed on or after 1 January 1951.
