Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Cheeripireddy Pulla Reddy vs Mamidi Nagamma on 15 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988AP374, AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 374, (1988) 1 RENCR 411, (1987) 2 ANDH LT 875, (1987) 2 LS 249, (1987) 2 APLJ 420
ORDER
1. This revision petition at the instance of the tenant arises out of a petition filed under S. 14(3) of the Rent Control Act to grant temporary mandatory injunction directing the landlord to remove the lock and key, which was put up by the respondent in the rented premises i.e. the hotel called Mothi Mahal situated it Karnbala Tank, Rajahmundry.
2. It is stated by the tenant that the landlord on the evening of 14-4-1981 locked the hotel premises and caused serious obstruction to his opening the hotel and entering the premises. When the tenant was trying to remove the lock the respondent's henchmen threw him away from removing the lock and subsequently he could not open the hotel and stopped running the hotel and therefore he is obliged to file the petition for granting mandatory injunction and temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondent to re- move the lock and key. This is resisted by the landlord stating that as per the terms of the contract the tenant is liable to vacate the premises the moment there are arrears and the tenant sub-let the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.900/- and a registered notice dt. 19-9-1980 was issued calling upon him to vacate the premises on the ground of sub-letting and also arrears of rent. The tenant refused the notice. One of the sub-tenants i.e. Dhanalaxmi was causing nuisance and the respondent protested and asked the sub- tenant to vacate and sub-tenant Dhanalaxmi brought the petitioner and the premises was delivered to the respondent on 15-3-1981 and the premises is in possession of the respondent ever since then. The allegation of locking the premises on 14-4-1981 is denied.
3. The Rent Controller held that the tenant did not deliver the petitioner schedule premises as contended by the landlord articularly in view of the admission of the Landlord that the entire hotel material including furniture is in the schedule premises. In this view the Rent Controller directed the Landlord to open the lock illegally put up by her to the petitioner schedule premises. On appeal the appellate authority, confirmed the view of the Rent Controller that the tenant id not vacate the premises and tenancy subsisted but however held that the tenant as no remedy under the Rent Control Act to seek restitution or issuance of a mandatory injunction for breaking, open the lock and he only remedy open to the tenant is to file a suit for recovery, of possession and the Application under S. 14 of the Rent Control leer is not maintainable.
4. S. 14 of the Rent Control Act to the extent relevant is as follows:
"14(1). No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant.
(2) A tenant in Occupation of a building ,nay, if the landlord has contravened the Provisions of this section, make an application to the Controller complaining of such Contravention.
(3) If the tenant satisfies the Controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld without just or sufficient cause, the controller may pass an interim order directing the landlord to restrore the amenities immediately pending the inquiry referred to in sub-sec.(4).
XX XX XX XX
"Explanation: In this section the expression ,amenities' includes supply of water, electricity' passage, staircases, light, lavatories, lifts and conservancy or sanitary services."
5. The crucial consideration is whether the act of the landlord locking the door and thereby obstructing the tenant from entering the premises constitutes cutting off or withholding the amenity. The scope and amplitude of the expression 'amenity' in S. 14 arises for consideration. Amenity is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as 'Pleasantness'. In words and phrases by Jojn B Sounders Second Edition it is stated that 'modern planning. usage has stretched the word amenity. The word may be taken to express that element in the appearance and lay-out of town and country which makes for a comfortable and pleasant life rather than a mere existence. In Corpus Juris Secumdum Vol. 3 regarding amenity it is stated as follows:
"In real property law, such circumstances, in regard to situation lout look, access to a water course, or the like as enhance the Pleasantness or desirability of an estate for purposes of residence, or contribute to the pleasure and enjoyment of the occupants, rather than to their indisposable needs.' In (1920) 1 KB 34,3 in re Ellis and the Ruslip NU AC Scrutton LJ with reference to Amenity held as follows:
"The word amenity i.e., obviously used very loosely, it is, I think novel in an act of Parliament and appears to mean pleasant circumstances or features, advantages. Wide streets and plenty of air and room between houses seem clearly to be amenities and zt provision by securing them by setting back houses to a given time seems to me to ht-, a provision with a, view to securing amenity."
6. It, is not possible or feasible to define the expression 'amenity' with exactitude and precision. S. 14 did not endeavour to define or indicate the ambit of amenity and the explanation by inclusive texture seeks to bring certain conveniences and facilities within the fold of amenities but this explanation cannot he considered as exhaustive. By elimination process an attempt may he made to identify the coverage of amenity. In a residential premises the basic necessities are roof, walls and flooring. With thew minimum attainments a person can have his abode. The provision of electricity, toilets, drainage facilities etc. contribute to better living. All other facilities, provision or equipment except the basic necessities can be brought within the region of amenities. In the by-gone days prior to sophistication touch to the house the abode in a house with hare provision of roof, walls and flooring without electricity, toilets or rod grills to the windows and locking arrangement was common. Therefore, facilities like electricity, toilets etc. to a shell i.e. roof, walls and flooring can he considered as amenities. The civilis trex brought in its wake the urge for arrangements in the house ,for privacy and security. The iron grills to the windows laced by curtains provide safety and secure privacy. Equally the locking arrangement particularly the main door of the house contributes to safety as well as privacy. The locking arrangement facilitates .he inmates of the house to go out without 1car of trespass or theft. In a situation where outsiders intrude and put the lock of their own it prevents the inmates from entering he house thereby impending the enjoyment of premises. This obstruction from entering he house can happen notwithstanding the articles of the owner or the tenant of the house as the case may he are inside the house. The locking arrangement cuts both was namely adding to the convenient enjoyment of the premises or hinder such enjoyment in certain situations, The locking arrangement is such is not a basic necessity and this it involved in the interests of safety and privacy and thereby contributing to better living and enjoyment of the premises. The expression an Amenity' in S. 14 should he considered in a broad perspective. To say that the tenant is dispossessed and the only remedy to seek remedy by a suit under specific Relief Act in he event of putting another lock by the landlord results in deprivation of beneficial provisions of safeguarding the interests of he tenancies and expeditious remedy. The Rent Control Act. If the action of the landlord by putting his lock by threat or force considered as dispossession it is tantamount to eviction of the tenant without recourse to, he remedy under the Act and by this simple process the eviction is achieved and the tenant forced to be out of the premises is obliged the suit for recovery of possession thereby deprived of imminent relief.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the decision in Hari Jec Bhoh v. M. A. Jaleel, (1968) 2 Andh WR 484 wherein considering the impact of the expression to S.14 and proceeding upon the footing that he sub-tenant is dispossessed Gopal Rao Ekbote. J. held as follows at page 488 :
Possession itself is not an amenity as per he explanation attached to S. 14. It resupposes the possession of the tenant and is the amenities for the effective enjoyment of premises to which reference is made in such as water supply electricity supply and drainage supply and other matters of the same kind. It of course includes passage which necessary to reach the premises occupied by the sub-tenant. That is far from saying that possession itself is treated as an amenity. I am therefore clear in my view that since the sub-tenant admits that he has been dispossessed from the premises on 30th June, 1984 the only course available to him was to file a suit for possession of the premises from which he has been unauthorisedly dispossessed. He could not have filed any application under s. 14. The Rent Controller therefore was wrong, in entertaining this application"
8. This case obviously proceeded upon the footing that the tenant has been completely dispossessed of the premises and he was totally out of possession. In the instant case dispossession or total dispossession cannot be inferred as admittedly all the moveables and articles belonging to the tenant are intact in the premises and prevention of a person from entering the premises by putting another lock cannot be equated to dispossession. Therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts in the instant case. It may be stated with respect that the invocation of concept of ejusdern generics in the explanation to S. 14 is out of context. The explanation bearing the inclusive texture seeks to bring in the categories mentioned therein within the sweep of amenity. The conclusive definition cannot' be stretched to ejusdem generis and the interpretation restricting the amenity to the categories mentioned in the explanation or categories subordinate thereto cannot be spelt out from 'the explanation. with respect I am unable to subscribe to the view propounded by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. regarding the applicability of concept of ejusdem generis.
9. In Narayana, v. Appukutty, (1955) 2 Mad LJ (Notes) 31 the Madras High Court considered the scope of amenity as following:
'The, amenity is really convergence. The object of enacting 5. 8 of the Madras Act XXV 1949 was to cheek prevalent tendencies on the part of some landlords who resorted to extra legal was in order to make the tenant pay higher rent or make him vacate the premises by cutting off the supply of electricity, water etc. or locking up a do way that normally constituted a passage or shutting of a source or natural light and air or in the case of furnished house, removing of a fan or a piece of furniture already existing in the house or removing certain articles of daily use that are provided in the kitchen like a grinding stone or inortor, etc. or a hatch. An interference with these conveniences would constitute an infringement under S. 8 of the Act."
10. In the result, the order of the Appellant Authority is set aside. The order of the Re Controller is restored. C.R.P. allowed. No costs.
11. Revision allowed.