Miss Lucy
← All judgments

P. Raju Bai Ganga Mohan And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors.

Supreme Court14 September 1987A.P. Sen · B.C. Ray

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a court directs the appointment of a receiver during partition proceedings of jointly owned property and the original lessee subsequently repudiates obligations undertaken in a court-approved agreed order, the court may maintain the receiver's appointment as just and expedient, and may accept a higher bid received by the receiver in place of the lessee's renewed term, notwithstanding the lessee's attempt to invoke statutory tenant protections that do not apply to the area in question.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER
A.P. Sen, J.

1. In these cases, a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Waghray, J.) very rightly and properly directed the appointment of a receiver of a cinema theatre during the final decree proceedings in a suit for partition between co-widows having a half share therein, on being satisfied that it was just and expedient to do so for the limited purpose of inviting offers for leasing out the same. The petitioners in SLP Nos. 6070-71/87 Ganga Mohan, A. Pandarinath and P. Narayana - are the outgoing lessees paying a rent of Rs. 625 per month and their lease expired on March 31, 1987. A Division Bench (Bhaskaran, CJ and Venkatarama Reddy, J.) however issued a direction for the renewal of their lease for one year in terms of the agreed order by which they had undertaken to pay an increased rent of Rs. 7,000 per month. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners issued a notice repudiating their liability to pay the enhanced rent on the ground that they were statutory tenants protected under Section 2(ix) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and therefore the demand for payment of the enhanced rent of Rs. 7,000 was illegal. The learned Single Judge rightly repelled the contention on the ground that Armor having been declared to be a gram panchayat, it ceased to be a municipality and therefore the provisions of the Act were not applicable to that area. Taking into account the subsequent conduct of the petitioners in trying to repudiate their liability to pay the enhanced rent, the learned Single Judge held that it would be just and proper to appoint a receiver. The report of the receiver shows that he has now received a bid of Rs. 31,000 per month for the cinema theatre for a period of two years. Accordingly, SLP Nos. 6070-71/87 are dismissed. The ad-interim order is vacated.

2. In view of the foregoing, leave in SLP No. 8337/87 preferred by Smt. B. Raju Bai, one of the co-widows, directed against the order of the Division Bench for the renewal of the licence of the outgoing lessees, has to be granted. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated June 29, 1987 are set aside.

3. The High Court shall now pass appropriate orders on the report of the receiver accepting the bid of Rs. 31,000 per month after giving the parties an opportunity of a hearing.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free