Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 273 (AP)

P. Ramachaadra Reddy v. C. Desamma

2001-03-16

V.ESWARAIAH

body2001
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE tenant filed this C. R. P. against the order of the Prl. Subordinate Judge-cum- rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Tirupathi dt. 22-11-1997 made in CM. A. No. 2 of 1996 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, tirupathi in R. C. C. No. 22 of 1990, dated 29-12-1995. ( 2 ) THE respondent who is the landlady filed eviction petition before the Rent controller, Tirupathi which was initially numbered as R. C. C. No. 5 of 1981 and it was transferred to Rent Controller, Pakala and numbered as RC. C. No. 2 of 1988 and again it was re-transferred to the file of Rent controller, Tirupathi and renumbered as r. C. C. No. 22 of 1990. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the r. C. C. No. 22 of 1990 before the Rent controller. The petitioner herein is referred to as the tenant and the respondent herein is referred to as landlady . The landlady filed the petition under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (a) and 10 (2) (i) and (vi) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a direction to the tenant to vacate from the b schedule building and hand over the vacant possession to her. The case of the landlady is that she purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed dt. 18-8-1980 (Ex. A-1) from her vendor K. Srinivasulu Reddy and when the building was purchased, in a portion of it K. Srinivasulu Reddy was residing and in another portion the tenant p. Ramachandra Reddy was residing and the vendor vacated it and handed over to the landlady and also delivered constructive possession of the building under occupation of the tenant and also directed the tenant to pay the rents to the landlady. The landlady submits that she is the absolute owner of the entire petition schedule property and the tenant occupied b schedule property which is part and parcel of a schedule property and the monthly rent for b schedule property was rs. The landlady submits that she is the absolute owner of the entire petition schedule property and the tenant occupied b schedule property which is part and parcel of a schedule property and the monthly rent for b schedule property was rs. 100/- which was payable by the tenant on or before 5th day of every succeeding month and the landlady was residing in a rented small house in lsuka street, Tirupathi along with her son who was studying B. A. in S. V. Arts College at Tirupathi and the house occupied by her was not sufficient and convenient for their living and the landlord of the landlady was pressurizing her to vacate the house in which she was residing and therefore she has issued a registered notice on 21-10-1980 vide ex. A-5 demanding the tenant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the b schedule building to her, but the tenant did not vacate. On the other hand, the tenant gave a reply denying the averments made in the notice by the landlady and the tenant neither paid the rents nor did he vacate the house and the landlady filed the petition for eviction of the tenant for committing wilful default in payment of the rents and for personal occupation of b schedule building. ( 3 ) THE tenant filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and further stated that the landlady is not the owner of the petition schedule property, but one samanu Avanakshamma was the owner of the said property and he is the tenant under the said Avanakshamma since 15 years and there is no privity of contract at any time between the landlady and the tenant and there is no relationship between them as landlady and tenant, therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is further stated that the landlady is not entitled for any relief in the said petition as the tenant is not due and payable any amounts to the landlady. The tenant also stated that when the landlady failed in her attempts to trespass into the property in which the tenant is residing, avanakshamma filed O. S. No. 545 of 1980 in the Court of Prl. District Munsif at Tirupathi and the Court granted temporary injunction in I. A. NO. The tenant also stated that when the landlady failed in her attempts to trespass into the property in which the tenant is residing, avanakshamma filed O. S. No. 545 of 1980 in the Court of Prl. District Munsif at Tirupathi and the Court granted temporary injunction in I. A. NO. 1788 of 1980 on 27-9-1980 and thus the tenant submitted that the landlady approached the Court with frivolous and vexatious petition with an intention to cause annoyance and hardship to the tenant from continuing to live peacefully in the said building and the landlady somehow wanted to evict him. It is also stated that for wrongful conduct of the landlady a crl. M. P. No. 640 of 1981 was also filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate of II Class at tirupathi. ( 4 ) THE landlady purchased the petition schedule property from K. Srinivasulu reddy Under Ex. A-l sale deed dt. 18-8-1980 and she issued a notice vide Ex. A-5 on 21-10-1980 to the tenant for vacation of the b schedule building. The tenant gave a reply to the said notice on 24-11-1980 vide ex. B-l. The landlady filed the petition on 2-3-1981. The tenant filed the counter on 17-9-1981. The trial commenced in the year 1991. It appears that the petition was not at all taken up for enquiry in view of the transfer from Rent Controller, Tirupathi to rent Controller, Pakala which was pending upto 1990 and again re-transferred to the rent Controller, Tirupathi which was re- numbered as present R. C. C. No. 22 of, 1990. Thus no enquiry commenced in this petition upto 1991. Meanwhile the suit filed by Avanakshamma in O. S. No. 545 of 1980 against the landlady for permanent injunction not to interfere with her possession in respect of the petition schedule property was dismissed by Prl. District Munsif, Tirupathi by a judgment and decree dt. 17-3-1987 which is marked as ex. A-6 in the rent control case. Against which the said Avanakshamma also filed an appeal in A. S. No. 140 of 1987 which was also dismissed on 29-11-1994 which fs marked as Ex. A-15. The landlady was examined as P. W. 1 on 20-6-1991 and she was cross-examined in 1992. Exs. A-l to a-15 were marked on behalf of the landlady. The vendor of the landlady i. e. , srinivasulu Reddy was examined as P. W. 2. A-15. The landlady was examined as P. W. 1 on 20-6-1991 and she was cross-examined in 1992. Exs. A-l to a-15 were marked on behalf of the landlady. The vendor of the landlady i. e. , srinivasulu Reddy was examined as P. W. 2. The son of the landlady was examined as p. W. 3. By the year 1992 the evidence on behalf of the landlady was completed. The tenant examined himself as R. W. 1 on 5-3-1993 and R. Ws. 2, 3 and 5. He also examined R. W. 4 Arjun Reddy, the son of avanakshamma who is said to be the landlady of the building. In 1994 only the tenant had completed his side of evidence. The Rent Controller held that the contention of the tenant that Avanakshamma was the landlady and he is the tenant under avanakshamma is not at all proved and the suit filed by Avanakshamma was dismissed vide Ex. A-6 which was also confirmed in a. S. No. 140 of 1987 vide Ex. A-15 and the said Avanakshamma was never in possession of Ex. X-1 property and therefore the denial of title by the tenant is not bona fide and it is mala fide and the landlady is entitled to evict the tenant from the petition schedule property under section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act and as the landlady also required the premises for her personal occupation, she is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) (a) of the Act. The Rent controller further held that the tenant defaulted in payment of the rents from 1980 onwards till the disposal of the rent control case and therefore he is liable to be evicted under Sec. 10 (2) (i) of the Act. Accordingly the R. C. C. No. 22 of 1990 was allowed by an order dt. 29-12-1995 directing the tenant to vacate the premises from the petition b schedule property and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the landlady on or before 28-2-1996, failing which the landlady is at liberty to take possession of the petition b schedule property from the tenant by due process of law. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Rent controller the tenant filed C. M. A. No. 2 of 1996 before the Pr. Subordinate Judge-cum- rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Tirupathi. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Rent controller the tenant filed C. M. A. No. 2 of 1996 before the Pr. Subordinate Judge-cum- rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Tirupathi. The appellate Tribunal considered the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by order dated 22-11-1997, against which the tenant filed this C. R. P. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the tenant contended that both the Tribunals failed to see that there is no jural relationship between the parties as landlady and tenant and therefore the Rent controller has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition and it is also contended that avanakshamma is the landlady by virtue of the settlement deed dt. 25-1-1939 Ex. X-1 executed by the father of the vendor of the landlady in favour of mother of avanakshamma and Avanakshamma succeeded to the property through her mother and the father of the tenant was the tenant of Avanakshamma and therefore the denial of title by the tenant is bonafide and not mala fide. It is further stated that exs. B-3 to B-5 which are the rent receipts passed by Avanakshamma conclusively establish that the tenant is in occupation of the premises under the ownership of avanakshamma and the landlady has no title to the property and she is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. ( 7 ) THE tenant is the daughter s son of avanakshamma. The vendor of the landlady is the brother s son of avanakshamma. The mother of avanakshamma was Smt. Chinnakka. The property originally belonged to Katari chenchu Reddy who was the husband of chinnakka. It is the case of Avanakshamma and the tenant herein that the property was settled by Katari Venkatesham Reddy @ venkateshwarlu Reddy under Ex. X-1 in favour of Chinnakka on 25-1-1939. The settler of Ex. X-l Venkatesham Reddy, the father of Srinivasulu Reddy died in 1947. It is stated that five years after the death of venkatesham Reddy, Chinnakka died. That means Chinnakka died somewhere in 1952 i. e. , much prior to Hindu Succession Act came into force. Venkatesham Reddy and avanakshamma are brother and sister and the children of Chinnakka. The daughter of avanakshamma viz. , Kamalamma was given in marriage to Venkatesham Reddy. Venkatesham Reddy had only one son i. e. Srinivasulu Reddy. That means Chinnakka died somewhere in 1952 i. e. , much prior to Hindu Succession Act came into force. Venkatesham Reddy and avanakshamma are brother and sister and the children of Chinnakka. The daughter of avanakshamma viz. , Kamalamma was given in marriage to Venkatesham Reddy. Venkatesham Reddy had only one son i. e. Srinivasulu Reddy. It is the case of srinivasulu Reddy and his vendee viz. , the landlady that the so-called settlement deed ex. X-l was not at all proved and it was not acted upon and Avanakshamma was never in possession of the property at all material times. Venkatesham Reddy and his son srinivasulu Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The elder daughter of Avanakshamma i. e. , kamalamma was given in marriage to venkatesham Reddy, the brother of avanakshamma and another daughter lakshamma was given in marriage to p. Krishna Reddy. It is the case of the tenant herein that he is the son of P. Krishna reddy i. e. , the daughter s son of avanakshamma. It is also his case that his father was tenant of the petition b schedule property and he used to pay the rents to his grandmother Avanakshamma. After the death of his father viz. , P. Krishna reddy the tenant continued to be a tenant of the said property and paying the rents to avanakshamma. It is also the case of avanakshamma and the tenant that petition b schedule property was let out to several other persons by Avanakshamma and it was enjoyed by Avanakshamma only as the owner but not by Venkatesham Reddy or his son Srinivasulu Reddy and therefore the landlady cannot get any right under ex. A-1 sale deed. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the landlady Ex. A-3 certified copy of the property tax register extracts for the years 1961-62 to 1965-66 showing the name of Venkatesham Reddy was filed. In the Municipality records (Ex. A-4) the name of Venkatesham Reddy is alone recorded and after the death of venkatesham Reddy the name of srinivasulu Reddy was mutated in the municipal records. The landlady also filed certified copy of suit in O. S. No. 8 of 1980 (Ex. A-7) filed by the wife of K. Srinivasulu reddy i. e. , the vendor s wife of the landlady for maintenance and to create charge over the petition a schedule property towards maintenance. The landlady also filed certified copy of suit in O. S. No. 8 of 1980 (Ex. A-7) filed by the wife of K. Srinivasulu reddy i. e. , the vendor s wife of the landlady for maintenance and to create charge over the petition a schedule property towards maintenance. The demand notice (Ex. A-10) issued by the Municipality and tax receipts for tax paid by the vendor of the landlady (Ex. A-11) were also filed. The landlady also filed voters list of Tirupathi Municipality (Ex. A-13) stating that K. Srinivasulu Reddy was residing in the said house, but not avanakshamma. She also filed certified copy of judgment in O. S. No. 545 of 1980 (Ex. A-6) which was confirmed in A. S. No. 140 of 1987 (Ex. A-15 ). The suit filed by avanakshamma for permanent injunction not to interfere with her possession by the landlady was dismissed which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court, against which a second appeal was also filed by the legal heirs of Avanakshamma and the second appeal was also dismissed by this court in S. A. No. 329 of 1995 on 15-3-2001. The landlady also examined her vendor viz. , K. Srinivasulu Reddy who deposed that the so-called settlement deed Ex. X-1 said to have been executed by "ms father was never acted upon and the signatures appearing on it do not belong to his father and the said document was marked subject to objection. Though it was objected, the said Avanakshamma had not taken any steps in the suit filed by her to prove the contents of the said document in the rent control case filed by the landlady. No steps had been taken by the tenant either to examine Avanakshamma or to implead her in the proceedings. Her suit filed for injunction claiming that she was the owner was dismissed which was finally confirmed by this Court. The so-called rent receipts ex. No steps had been taken by the tenant either to examine Avanakshamma or to implead her in the proceedings. Her suit filed for injunction claiming that she was the owner was dismissed which was finally confirmed by this Court. The so-called rent receipts ex. B-6 to B-8 have not at all been filed in the suit filed by Avanakshamma and the rent Controller as well as the Appellate tribunal held that the said documents were filed subsequent to the filing of the rent control case and there was a collusion between the tenant and the said avanakashamma and there is no other independent evidence in support of his case to state that Avanakshamma ever resided in the petition schedule property and ever enjoyed as owner by letting out the premises in favour of third parties. No other documentary evidence to show that avanakshamma was receiving rents from the previous tenants. The Rent Control appellate Tribunal considered the following points for determination: (1) Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain Rent control Petition? (2) Whether the Appellant committed wilful default and he is liable to be evicted on that ground? (3) Whether the respondent (petitioner in R. C. C. No. 22 of 1990) is entitled for eviction of appellant on the ground of bonafide requirement? (4) Whether the order of the Rent controller is in accordance with law or whether there are any grounds to interfere with it?and held that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the rent control case and the tenant has committed wilful default and he is liable to be evicted under section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. The tenant is also liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlady as it is proved by her that there is no other building in Tirupathi except the petition schedule property purchased by her and therefore she is entitled to the premises for her personal occupation under sec. l0 (3) (a) (i) (a ). The Appellate Tribunal further held that the denial of title is not bona fide but it is mala fide. Thus all the findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. ( 9 ) THE so-called landlady of the tenant avanakshamma never came into possession of the petition schedule property by virtue of settlement deed Ex. The Appellate Tribunal further held that the denial of title is not bona fide but it is mala fide. Thus all the findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. ( 9 ) THE so-called landlady of the tenant avanakshamma never came into possession of the petition schedule property by virtue of settlement deed Ex. X-1 and her name was not noted in any of the revenue records and the settlement deed was never acted upon and it is not at all proved as to how Avanakshamma succeeded to the property from Chinnakka when Srinivasulu reddy is a male legal heir prior to the hindu Succession Act. Avanakshamma was never in possession of the petition schedule property except the vendor of the landlady and the father of the vendor of the landlady. After purchase of the property by the landlady under Ex. A-1 constructive possession was delivered to her and at that time the tenant was in occupation of the petition b schedule property paying rs. 100/- per month towards rents. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the landlady submits that as the building was required bona fidely by the landlady, the question of attornment does not arise in the instant case as the landlady required the said premises for her personal occupation. In support of the contention he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in M. Suryanarayana Raju vs. Korukonda Appa Rao. In the said case a learned Judge of this Court held that there is no provision either under the Transfer of property Act or under the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for attornment of tenancy by the tenant in favour of transferee and the tenant is bound by such transfer and when the ownership is transferred, the transferee-landlord need not wait for the attornment by the tenant. The tenant can dispute with regard to the past liability till the date of transfer alone. Once it is established that the property was transferred, the tenancy also gets transferred along with transfer of property. The tenant can dispute with regard to the past liability till the date of transfer alone. Once it is established that the property was transferred, the tenancy also gets transferred along with transfer of property. The learned Judge held in that case as follows:"i have to conclude that neither under the provisions of the Transfer of property Act nor under the provisions of A. P. Rent Control Act there is any provision for attornment of the tenancy by the tenant in favour of the transferee and such transferee would automatically become the landlord of the tenant on the same existing terms and conditions. In the instant case, the court below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff only on the ground that the tenant has not attorned the tenancy in favour of the transferee and this approach, according to me, is not correct. Therefore, that finding of the court below is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. " ( 11 ) THE concurrent findings of both the tribunals are based on the oral and documentary evidence and both the tribunals have rightly held that there is abundant evidence to believe the title of the landlady and her vendor and she need not approach the civil Court for a declaration of her title to the property so as to enable her to maintain eviction petition. The denial of title by the tenant is not bona fide and the teriant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rents and the landlady is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for her personal requirement. I do not see any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by both the Tribunals below. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings none of the other cases cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties are relevant to be considered in the CRP. The CRP accordingly fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not wish to make any order as to costs.