Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 152 (AP)

Chinta Kashinatham v. Pendyala Narayana Rao

2005-02-18

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) SINCE these two second appeals arise out of the common Judgment dated 17. 11. 2004, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) S. A. NO. 160 of 2005 arises out of A. S. No. 1 of 2004 filed against the Decree in O. S. No. 179 of 2001 as suit filed by the respondents against the appellant and others for recovery of vacant possession of Ac. 0. 13 guntas 35 s. q. yards let out to the appellant and others by the respondents, after removing the structures raised by the appellants and others therein. S. A. No. 161 of 2005 arises out of A. S. No. 24 of 2004 filed against the Decree in O. S. No. 136 of 2001 a suit filed by the appellant seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the Ac. 0. 13 guntas 35 s. q. yards 35 sq. yards of land and structures therein, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid OS. No. 179 of 2001. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS who are the owners of the land covered by the suits i. e. suit land filed O. S. No. 179 of 2001 for recovery of the suit land from the appellant and others, who are the partners of a firm, which was let out to them for 20 Years under a registered lease deed dated 02. 06. 1976, after expiry of the period of lease and after issuing a notice to quit. They sought vacant possession of the land after demolishing the structures raised by the appellant and others as lessees. The case of the appellant, who filed O. S. No. 136 of 2001 seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit land is that after expiry of the period of lease covered by the lease deed dated 02. 06. 1976, respondents who renewed the lease for 20 more years at an enhanced rent, cannot interfere with his possession over the suit land before expiry of the period covered by the renewed lease, more so because he raised two new sheds in the suit land; He took the same defence in O. S. No. 179 of 2001. ( 4 ) SINCE common question of fact and law arise in both the suits they were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. ( 4 ) SINCE common question of fact and law arise in both the suits they were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. In support of their cases respondents examined two witness as PWs1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A. 10. In support of his case appellant examined DWs1 to 3 and marked Ex. B. 1. ( 5 ) THE trial Court holding that the appellants is not entitled to the injunction sought, and that respondents are entitled to recover possession of the suit land after demolishing the structures therein dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and decreed the suit filed by the respondents, Appeals preferred by the appellant questioning those decrees were dismissed. Hence, these second Appeals. ( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the lessees after taking the suit land on lease, constructed structures therein, and since those structures would become the property of the lessor after the expiry of period of lease, and since a fresh lease for 20 years was entered into by the respondents with the appellant after expiry of the original period of lease, in view of the existence of the structures (buildings) in the suit land, the same is governed by the provisions of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (Rent Control Act) and so Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondents and so both the courts below erred in finding in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit land, which was let out by the respondents after demolishing the structures therein, and since oral agreement of lease for 20 years alleged by the appellant is not true and valid, concurrent finding of the Courts below that respondents are entitled to recover possession of the suit land needs no interference and contends that when the property let out by the respondents is a vacant land, provisions of Rent Control Act cannot be invoked by the appellant. ( 7 ) AS per Ex. A. 1 registered lease deed dated 02. 06. 1976 after the expiry of the period of lease, lessees have to vacate the suit land and deliver vacant possession thereof to the respondents. ( 7 ) AS per Ex. A. 1 registered lease deed dated 02. 06. 1976 after the expiry of the period of lease, lessees have to vacate the suit land and deliver vacant possession thereof to the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the structures raised in the suit land by the lessee be came the property of the lessor cannot be accepted, because as per Section 108 (h) the lessee can, even after the determination of the lease, at any time whilst in possession of the demised property, but not afterward can remove all things which he attached to earth, and since it is not the case of the appellant that either he or the lessee ever handed over possession of the demised premises to the lessor and then reentered into the premises under a fresh lease. It is the specific case of the appellant that he is in continuous possession of the suit land. So the structures raised in the suit land do not become the property of the respondents, for them to give those structures buildings) also or lease to the appellant for the appellant to take shelter under the Rent Control Act. In fact in Lakshmipat Vs. Larson and Turbo AIR 1951 Bombay 2005 it is held that the lessee is the owner of the building put up by him on the land lease. A owner cannot be lessee. Obviously for that reason only respondents filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land, but not with structures therein. So the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to protection of the Rent Control Act cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE contention of the appellant that he entered into a fresh lease for a period of 20 Years, even if true, cannot be accepted because a lease for 20 Years can only be created through a registered document, and so theory of oral lease for 20 years set up by the appellant cannot be countenanced. ( 9 ) SINCE both the Courts below concurrently found that the quit notice issued by the respondents to the appellant is valid and is in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and since as per the terms of the Ex. ( 9 ) SINCE both the Courts below concurrently found that the quit notice issued by the respondents to the appellant is valid and is in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and since as per the terms of the Ex. A. 1, appellant has to deliver vacant possession of the suit land and since I held that provisions of Rent Control Act do not apply to the facts of the case and since lease for 20 Years cannot be made orally no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in these two appeals, and so they are dismissed at the stage of admission. However, appellants are granted time till 30. 04. 2005 for delivering vacant possession of the suit land to the respondents. No costs.