TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tenant's Right to Re-occupy Preserved in New Building Case</h1> <h3>Raichurmatham Prabhakar and Ors. Versus Rawatmal Dugar</h3> Raichurmatham Prabhakar and Ors. Versus Rawatmal Dugar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether a new tenancy comes into existence, between the parties, on possession being restored to the tenant over the newly erected building or any part thereof, which would entitle the landlord to settle the rent and other terms of lease afreshRs.2. What is the period of limitation for filing an application by the tenant seeking enforcement of the order of the Rent Controller made under Section 12 of the ActRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. New Tenancy and Rent Settlement:The court examined whether a new tenancy arises when the tenant is restored possession of the newly erected building, which would allow the landlord to set new rent and lease terms. The court clarified that under Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the lease does not end when the tenant delivers possession to the landlord for repairs or reconstruction. The tenancy continues to survive, and the tenant retains the right to re-occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions as before. The rent obligation is suspended during the period the landlord is in possession for repairs or reconstruction. Upon re-entry, the tenant is liable to pay the same rent as before, unless the landlord seeks a revision of rent as permitted by law. The landlord cannot condition the tenant's re-entry on the payment of a higher rent. The court underscored that the tenant's right to re-occupy the premises is protected, and any increase in rent must follow the procedure outlined in Section 5 of the Act.2. Period of Limitation for Tenant's Application:The court addressed the period of limitation for filing an application by the tenant seeking enforcement of the Rent Controller's order under Section 12. The court distinguished between the landlord's application for execution of the order and the tenant's application for re-entry. The landlord's application is governed by Rule 23, which requires filing within six months from the date of the order. However, the tenant's application is not for execution but for enforcing the landlord's undertaking. Therefore, it is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year period from the date the right to apply accrues. The court emphasized that the tenant must act within the time specified by the Controller or within a reasonable time upon receiving the landlord's offer. The court overruled previous decisions that incorrectly applied Rule 23 to the tenant's application.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the tenant's application for re-entry was within the limitation period and that the landlord could seek fair rent as permitted by law. The court also noted that third parties currently occupying the premises must be given notice and heard before the High Court's order is implemented. The court's decision reinforces the tenant's right to re-occupy the premises on the original terms and conditions and clarifies the applicable limitation period for enforcing this right.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
