Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 53 (AP)

Ganta Anji Reddy v. Chunduru Srihari Rao

2002-01-23

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2002
DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent-tenant in RCC No. 74 of 1980 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Guntur, filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 2-5-1992 in RCA No. 30 of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, setting aside the order dated 17-3-1986 of the Rent Controller in RCC No. 74 of 1980. The revision petition against the second respondent Chunduru Krishna Murthy was dismissed for default as per order dated 20-2-1998. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the filing of this revision petition briefly are as follows: The first respondent in this revision petition Chunduru Srihari Rao and the second respondent are own brothers. The first respondent herein filed RCC No. 74 of 1980 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. He pleaded in his application that he took on rent the petition schedule premises and adjoining premises from the second respondent Krishna Murthy and thereafter sublet the petition schedule premises to the revision petitioner for rent. He also pleaded that revision petitioner committed default in payment of rents from 20-3-1979 and by 10-8-1980, he was in arrears to a tune of Rs. 850-00. He sought the eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. ( 3 ) THE revision petitioner resisted the application taking the plea that he took the petition schedule premises for rent from the second respondent Krishna Murthy, the first respondent was the agent of Krishna Murhty and as an agent, he was collecting rent for some time from the revision petitioner on behalf of Krishna Murthy. He also pleaded that for some time he was paying rent directly to the power of attorney holder of the second respondent under proper receipts and he has not committed default in payment of rent for the period mentioned in the eviction petition. He had categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the first respondent. It is also necessary to point out that the second respondent Krishna Murthy filed a separate counter in the eviction petition and supported the case of the revision petitioner. He had categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the first respondent. It is also necessary to point out that the second respondent Krishna Murthy filed a separate counter in the eviction petition and supported the case of the revision petitioner. ( 4 ) ON a consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, the Rent Controller by his order dated 17-3-1986 accepted the version of the revision petitioner that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the first respondent and he accordingly dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord-first respondent preferred RCA No. 30 of 1986. The appellate Court, on a consideration of evidence adduced before the Rent Controller and the contentions raised before him, disagreed with the findings of the Rent Controller and held that the revision petitioner is the tenant of the first respondent and he also further held that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents and thus became liable to be evicted. He allowed the appeal by his order dated 2-5-1992 and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner and granted him two months time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition is filed. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of this revision petition, the revision petitioner filed a petition in CMP No. 18747 of 1996 under Order 41, Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC, requesting the Court to receive two documents filed along with the petition as additional evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Controller, the first respondent herein filed a civil suit in OS No. 147 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Guntur, for recovery of arrears of rent. The revision petitioner contested that suit on the ground that he is not the tenant of the first respondent and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and he need not pay any rent to the first respondent. After contest, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3-8-1987. Aggrieved by that decree and judgment, the first, respondent herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Guntur, in AS No. 175 of 1987. The learned Principal District Judge by judgment dated 8-9-1989 dismissed the appeal. After contest, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3-8-1987. Aggrieved by that decree and judgment, the first, respondent herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Guntur, in AS No. 175 of 1987. The learned Principal District Judge by judgment dated 8-9-1989 dismissed the appeal. The CMP is filed to receive the certified copies of those two judgments as additional evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner. ( 6 ) THOUGH the additional evidence petition is pending for more than five years, the first respondent did not file any counter opposing the said petition. However, this CMP. , and the revision petition are heard together. At the time of arguments, the first respondent opposed receiving of those two documents as additional evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon some decisions in support of his contention that the two documents in question can be received as additional evidence. A Full Bench of A. P. High Court in its decision in Vinukonda Venkata Ramana v. M. Venkateswara Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 27 = 2001 (5) ALT 479 (FB), held that there is no bar in taking additional evidence in revisions filed under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The power of a revisional Court under the provisions of the Rent Control Act to receive additional evidence during the pendency of the revision petition is not challenged at the time of hearing of this revision petition. ( 8 ) IT was contended on behalf of the first respondent relying upon another decision of this Court that the two documents in question cannot now be received as additional evidence. It is the contention that the two documents were not produced before the two Courts below and therefore at this stage, the two documents cannot be received as additional evidence. The decision relied upon is the judgment of this Court in Chowdary and Company v. A. M. S. S. Suryanarayana Rao, 1998 (1) ALD 435 = 1998 (1) ALT 639 . In that decision, my learned brother Mr. The decision relied upon is the judgment of this Court in Chowdary and Company v. A. M. S. S. Suryanarayana Rao, 1998 (1) ALD 435 = 1998 (1) ALT 639 . In that decision, my learned brother Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy held that subsequent events coming into existence after order was passed by the Rent Controller though can be taken into consideration to mould the relief, party intending to have benefit of subsequent events must place them before Court where proceedings are pending at the earliest point of time and not at any point of time at his sweet will and convenience. ( 9 ) I have carefully read the above judgment. In my view the principle of law laid down in that judgment has no application to the facts of the present revision petition. In that case the question that fell for consideration before the Rent Controller was whether some other accommodation secured by the tenant is alternative accommodation or additional accommodation. In that case, during the pendency of the revision petition, the tenant sought the permission of the Court to produce some documents in evidence to show that he surrendered alternative accommodation during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. My learned brother noticed that such a plea was not raised before the appellate authority before whom appeal was pending for 12 long years and in grounds of revision it was the contention of the tenant that the documents produced by them relate to subsequent events and therefore those documents can be received as additional evidence. ( 10 ) IN the present revision petition, the tenant revision petitioner is not pleading any later development during the pendency of either the appeal before the Sub-Judge or the revision petition in this Court. The above decision relates to production of some documents to prove a subsequent event. In that context my learned brother made the above observations in his judgment. In the present revision petition, the documents produced are being relied upon as additional evidence in support of the contention of the revision petitioner that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the first respondent. There is a significant and lot of difference between the documents to be produced to prove a subsequent event and documents produced to provide as additional evidence regarding a plea already taken by the party concerned. There is a significant and lot of difference between the documents to be produced to prove a subsequent event and documents produced to provide as additional evidence regarding a plea already taken by the party concerned. In the present case, from the inception of the eviction proceedings, the tenant has consistently taken the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the first respondent. Therefore, as the present documents are produced to serve as additional evidence and not to prove any subsequent event, in my considered opinion, the above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 11 ) THE revision petitioner relied upon some other decisions also. I will consider them one after the other. The Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak, AIR 2000 SC 2276 , held as follows:"even subsequent developments or facts and turn of events coming into existence but found really relevant, genuine and vitally important in effectively deciding the issues raised and necessary to do real, effective and substantial justice or prevent miscarriage of justice not only can but ought to be taken into consideration by Courts even at the appellate stage. "the principle of law laid down in this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. As already pointed out the additional documents are sought to be relied upon to prove the contention already taken at the inception of eviction proceedings. It is not a subsequent development or event. The documents are meant to prove the plea taken in the original pleadings. ( 12 ) ANOTHER decision relied upon is a judgment of this Court in Y. Ramanarasaiah v. G. Sadanand, 1989 (3) ALT 610 . His Lordship Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, as His Lordship was then, held that the civil Courts are expected to respect the orders passed by each other rather than act in conflict with each other and this is based on principle of comity which has to be maintained between the various Courts. In that case the landlord in rent control petition was restrained by injunction order of a civil Court from executing the eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller and evicting the plaintiff in the civil suit. However, the Rent Controller entertained the execution petition and evicted the tenant therein. In that case the landlord in rent control petition was restrained by injunction order of a civil Court from executing the eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller and evicting the plaintiff in the civil suit. However, the Rent Controller entertained the execution petition and evicted the tenant therein. His Lordship observed that it may be, technically, there is no injunction restraining the Rent Controller from executing the decree of eviction, but by permitting execution with knowledge that the decree-holder is restrained by another Court in executing the said decree, the Rent Controller unwittingly helped the decree-holder in circumventing the orders passed by the another civil Court. His Lordship categorically held that such an attitude on the part of the Court is to be deprecated. ( 13 ) THE learned advocate for the revision petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Vaasant Rao Ankilkar v. Nalini Bai Joshi, 1996 (3) ALD 6500 = 1996 (3) ALT 507 . It was held in this decision that the person who receives the rent will come within the definition of landlord but the person, though he comes under the definition of landlord , still he cannot maintain an eviction petition without obtaining a previous written consent of the landlord as laid down in Section 10 (8) of the Act. In the present case, the first respondent did not institute the eviction proceedings on the ground that he is the agent of the second respondent and in that capacity he is entitled to evict the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. In the present proceedings, the main question to be considered is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the first respondent and if that relationship is accepted by the Courts, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises and if the Courts hold that such a relationship is not established by the first respondent, he is not entitled to evict the revision petitioner even if there is default in payment of rents by the revision petitioner to the landlord. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 . ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 . Before taking up the consideration of facts and principles of law kid down in the above decision, one fact is to be stated. In the CMP. , it is pleaded that in the lower appellate Court, he had taken the plea that the findings of the civil Courts in OS No. 147 of 1982 and in AS No. 175 of 1987 operate as res judicata in rent control proceedings and the appellate Court failed to consider that legal plea raised by the appellants. It is the contention of the first respondent that a perusal of the appellate Court judgment indicate that such a legal plea was not raised by the revision petitioner and therefore he is not now entitled to raise such a plea in the revision petition. ( 15 ) IN the above decision the facts of the case are that the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra A. R. Antulay was prosecuted by filing a private complaint of the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the offences on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable without the requisite sanction of the Government. The private complaint preferred a revision application in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. One of the observations made by the High Court is to the effect that the advocates appearing for the State Government and the Chief Minister submitted that in case if it is felt that bias is apparently inherent in the proposed action of the concerned Ministry, in such a case and situation it would be a justified ground for the Governor on his own, independently and without any reference to any Ministry to decide the question of sanction of prosecution of the Chief Minister. Regarding those observations, the State Government preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that such a concession was not made by the learned advocate for the State before the High Court. Regarding those observations, the State Government preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that such a concession was not made by the learned advocate for the State before the High Court. In that connection the Supreme Court held that the Judges record was conclusive and the Court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in the Court, and the Court cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. In view of the principle of law laid down in the above decision, due to absence of any reference in the appellate Court judgment to the legal plea based on the judgments of the civil Courts, it is to be presumed that no such contention was raised before the appellate Court. Such a conclusion by itself will not help the first respondent in the present revision petition. ( 16 ) THE certified copies of two judgments produced before this Court clearly indicate that the revision petitioner applied for certified copies of those two judgments well in advance during the pendency of the civil appeal before the learned District Judge and however he received the copies of the judgments only after the disposal of the appeal by the learned District Judge. In view of these facts, it is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that as he was not in possession of these two documents at the time of hearing of the appeal by the learned District Judge, he could not produce these two documents before the District Judge. I accept the said contention of the revision petitioner. ( 17 ) THESE two documents are vital documents. The first respondent is a party to those proceedings. He is bound by the findings given by the civil Courts regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the revision petitioner herein. There is no dispute from the first respondent that he did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge in the appeal in AS No. 175 of 1987. Those judgments have become final and conclusive. In view of the binding nature of those judgments, it is to be held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. Those judgments have become final and conclusive. In view of the binding nature of those judgments, it is to be held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. I decide to receive the above two documents as additional evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner. Ex. B18 is the last document marked on behalf of the respondents in the eviction petition before the Rent Controller. These two documents are directed to be marked as Exs. B19 and B20. These two documents clinch the issue decisively in favour of the revision petitioner and against the first respondent. ( 18 ) ONE another contention advanced on behalf of the first respondent is that the District Judge in the appeal took into consideration the Judgment of the Rent Controller in RCC No. 74 of 1980 and therefore these two documents need not be relied upon at this stage. I see no force in that contention. It is no doubt true that one of the factors referred to by the learned District Judge in his judgment is the order of the Rent Controller. He had taken into consideration the said order and also the other oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties in the civil Court and gave the findings on merits on a consideration of the entire evidence. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned advocate for the first respondent that these two documents will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner. In view of these two crucial documents, it is not now necessary to discuss and analyse the other evidence adduced by the parties before the Rent Controller to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties concerned. It will suffice if I observe that on a consideration of the material available before the Rent Controller, I am satisfied that the findings of the Rent Controller are correct findings. The appellate Court did not consider the evidence available on record in correct perspective and therefore it erred in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. For all the reasons stated above, I find merits in the revision petition and I accordingly decide to set aside the order of the appellate Court in RCA No. 30 of 1986. ( 19 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. For all the reasons stated above, I find merits in the revision petition and I accordingly decide to set aside the order of the appellate Court in RCA No. 30 of 1986. ( 19 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the appellate Court in RCA No. 30 of 1986 is set aside. The order of the Rent Controller in RCC No. 74 of 1980 is confirmed, CMP No. 18747 of 1996 is ordered. No. costs. ( 20 ) OFFICE to mark the two documents produced in CMP No. 18747 of 1996 as Exs. B19 and B20 and send those two documents to the Rent Controller, Guntur, to be kept in record in RCC No. 74 of 1980.