P. DASA MUNI REDDY versus P. APPA RAO

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 10-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

32 
P. DASA MUNI REDDY 
v. 
P. APPA RAO 
September 10, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER, J.] 
A11<tlira Pradesln Bulldillg.r (Lease, Rent and Ev.ictio11 Control) Ad( (A.P. Act 
15 of :1960)-Not app/ic1ible to build!ngs co11structed ';lit.er August 1957-Appllca-
tion for eviction to rent controlled with respect to bur/ding constructed after 1958 
-Dismissal and subsequent .lllit in Cil'i! Court-WhPther landlord precluded by 
waiver res;udicata or estoppe/. 
The Andhra Pradesh Bui'ldings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960, 
doe.s not apply to any building constructed after August !957. 
The appellant was the owner of a bc.ilding which was constructed in 1953 
and the resP<>ndent was the tenant. The appellant. by mistake, tued an applica-
tion before the Rent ControUer for .evktion of th•~ respondent on the ground 
of default in payment of. rent. The petition was dismissed by Rent Controller 
and by the appella~ authority. Thereafter, the appellant instituted a suit in tile 
Civil Court for eviction of the. re~pondent. The trial court apd the first appellate 
court decreed the suit, but th1: High Court set aside the decree in favour of the 
appellant on the ground that the appellant \Vas precluded by the principle of waiver 
from claiming any relief 
Allowing the appea!I to thi's Couri, 
HELD : The appellant was not disentitlecl to relief on the grounds of waiver, 
res iudicata or estoppet. 
[36F] 
· 
(1) Waiver is an intentional reli11qui~e111 of a kriown right or advantage, 
benefit, claim or privile~ which, eJlicept for such waiver. the party would have 
enjoyed and is based on the rule of judicial po!>~y that a person will not be 
a11owed to take inconsistent positions to gain advantage through courts. Volun-
tary cho.ico is the essence of waiver, that is, there should be an opportunity for 
choice between relinquishment and an enforcement of the right in question. Jt 
is.·consensual in natu!ll and implies a meeting of the minds and is a· matter of 
.mutual intention. It cannot be· held that there has been a waiver of valuable 
rights whr.re th" circumstances show that what was done wa~ involuntary, and, 
there cam be no waiver of a non-existent right. One cannot waive that which is 
not one's as a right at the time of waiver. 
Some mistake or misapprehension 
as to some ot the facts which comtitute the underlyinll assumption, without which 
. the partiee would not have made the contract may b~ sufficient to justify the court 
in Saying that there was no consent. As one cannot. confer jurisdiction by con-
sent, similarly, one cannot by agre·!ment waive jurisdiction of Courts. f35F-36C] 
Lachoo Mal v. Radh~y Shyam. [197 J] 3 S.C.R. 693, explained. 
(2) The Rent Controllei· had. no jurisdiction ·in respect of the building because 
of the date of its construction. and only the civil court had jurisdiction. The 
decree in the suit before the Rent Controller cannot be pleaded as res judicalll 
· because the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try and decide not only the 
particular matter in the suit but also the subsequent siiit in which the issue was 
raised. l'he date of .constn:iction wai not before the Rent Controller 
Under 
s. _44 the Evidence Act also the a.ppel!ant could show that the judgment in the 
suit before the Rent Controller was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver 
it. 
[35C.EJ 
Gokul Mancla.r v. P11dmanu11cl, 29 I.A. 196, referred to. 
(~) The foundation of tli1e doctrine of esto~I i• tbat there is representation 
of ex1st111g facts. 
A status of control of premises under the Rent Control Acts 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
P. D. MUNN! REDDY v. P. APPA RAO (Ray, C.J.) 
33 
·cannot be· acqu(red either by estoppel or by res judicata. The principle Is thac 
neither estoppel nor res judicata can give the court jurisdiction under the Acts 
which those Acts say it is not to have. The Rent Control Acts operate in rem. 
They give a status to the house from which certain legal consequeno."5 follow. 
[36C-E] 
Dawson's Bank Ltd. v. Nippo11 M. K. Kaisha, 62 I.A. JOO, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.· 1228 of 
1973. 
. 
_ 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
5th September, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second 
Appeal No. 256 of 1972: 
P. Ramachandra Reddy, P. P. Rao, T.V.S.N. Chari and A. K. 
c · Ganguli, for the appellant. 
D 
F 
G 
H 
K. Jayaram, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.