On a second appeal preferred by the respondent, the learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that in matters of jurisdiction the question of estoppel does number arise.
The decision of the learned Assistant Judge was upheld in an appeal filed by the respondent in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
In his written statement the respondent took a preliminary objec tion that the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to enter tain the suit as the suit fell within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller at Hyderabad.
The appellant prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent and for mesne profits till the delivery of possession of the prem ises.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1980 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S .A. No.
Jagdish K. Agarwal N.P. for the Appellant.
Two petitions had earlier been filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent and the Rent Controller had rejected the same on the ground that the purported tenancy of the respondent was hit by section 3 of the A.P. Rent Control Act and hence, the eviction suit was number entertain able by the Court of Rent Controller.
789 of 1973 filed in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyd erabad.
This companyclusion was arrived at on a plea to the said effect taken by the re spondent.
It was held that the respondent companyld number be allowed to approbate and repro bate and that he was estopped by way of pleading to take up an inconsistent plea regarding jurisdiction.
On the basis of this companyclusion, and other companyclusions with which we are number companycerned, the suit was decreed by the learned Assistant Judge in favour of the appellant.
277 1 of 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
O.S. No.
A Subba Rao for the Respondents.
If the City Civil Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit, the doctrine of estoppel companyld number be invoked so as to companyfer jurisdiction on the Court of City Civil Court.
It was on this ground that the eviction of the premises was sought by the appellant.
The respondent had been irregular in the payment of the said rent and had been a source of perpetual nuisance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
The case of the appellant was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the respondent was in the occupa tion of the said premises on payment of Rs.30 per month.
526 of 1977.
The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in Suit.
