Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 775 (AP)

Shankaramma v. Mohammed Abdul Hameed

2006-07-06

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
ORDER The petitioners herein are the tenants and the first respondent herein is the landlord in respect of the premises bearing No.11-4-272/2, situated at Medibavi, Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad. The first respondent filed R.C.No.137 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the tenants from the said premises on the ground of wilful default, denial of title and bona fide requirement of the said premises. 2. The Rent Controller, by order dated 16-08-1996, dismissed the R.C., on the ground that there is no jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenants, in view of the title set up by the tenants, and therefore, unless the relationship between the landlord and tenants is decided by a competent civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition and the petitioner was given liberty to initiate proceedings before a competent Court of law. Against the same. the landlord filed R.A. No. 266 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the R.A., holding that the husband of the 151 tenant, by name late Narasimha, was only an agreement holder in respect of the premises in question, and even according to the agreement, out of the sale consideration of Rs.2,000/-, only Rs.1,500/- has been paid and therefore, the tenants have not acquired any title to the said property. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also held that there was oral attornment in favour of the purchaser, who filed the eviction petition, and as the eviction petitioner purchased the said property by registered sale deed under Ex.P-1, denial of his title is not bona fide. 4. During the pendency of the CRP., this Court referred the matter to a Division Bench of this Court seeking clarification on the following two questions: (1) Whether the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the general provisions of Transfer of Property Act and lessor and lessee relationship be applied to the rent control proceedings under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent& Eviction) Control Act, 1960? (2) Whether the denial of title can be said to be mala fide in the light of EX.R-2 and the evidence of R.W.1 to R.W.4 in the present case? 5. The Division Bench, by order, dated 28-10-2005, answered the said reference. (2) Whether the denial of title can be said to be mala fide in the light of EX.R-2 and the evidence of R.W.1 to R.W.4 in the present case? 5. The Division Bench, by order, dated 28-10-2005, answered the said reference. It was held that in view of the definition mentioned under Section 2(vi) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), the transferee of the landlord is entitled to collect the rent as of right and he is a landlord under the inclusive definition. Since the attornment is not necessary under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "TP Act"), the tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee to maintain a suit for eviction or to claim rent. A transferee of the landlords rights steps into the shoes of the transferor-landlord, with all the rights and liabilities in respect of the subsisting tenancy. This Section does not insist that the transfer of the landlords rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant being unnecessary to confer validity on the transfer of the landlords rights, the tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee-landlord to maintain an application for eviction or to claim rent. Section 109 of the T.P. Act makes it clear that the landlord can transfer his property in favour of a third party during the subsistence of the lease. The consent of tenant is not necessary to transfer the property in favour of a third party. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the provisions of T.P. Act and the lessor and lessee relationship are applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Act. 6. In the light of the order of the Division Bench answering the reference, the questions that arise for consideration are: Whether there was any dispute to the title of the landlord and whether the denial of the title is bona fide or not? 7. Admittedly, as per the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 4, the tenants are only agreement holders under Ex.R-2, dated 06-8-1979, and out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,000/-, only Rs.1,500/- was paid, and Rs.500/- is yet to be paid. There is no dispute that the landlord purchased the property in question from the original owner., Mr. 7. Admittedly, as per the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 4, the tenants are only agreement holders under Ex.R-2, dated 06-8-1979, and out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,000/-, only Rs.1,500/- was paid, and Rs.500/- is yet to be paid. There is no dispute that the landlord purchased the property in question from the original owner., Mr. Ameer Mohammed, who was examined as P.W.2, under EX.P-1 sale deed on 29-12-1994. The tenants are also claiming title from Mr. Ameer Mohammed, P.W.2, who is said to have executed an agreement of sale in theirfavour. The landlord obtained the regular sale deed from the said Ameer Mohammed under EX.P-1. P.W.2, in his oral deposition, stated that attornment was made orally requesting the tenants to pay the rents to the landlord, who is examined as P.W .1. 8. As per the order of the Division Bench of the reference, when once the property is sold, the tenancy automatically follows even though evidence is available on record to show that attornment was made orally. After purchase the landlord issued a notice, dated 16-04-1995, and only after filing of the Rent Control petition, the tenants denied the title. Therefore, I am of the opinion that denial of the title is not bona fide in view of the registered sale deed and as the title has been transferred in favour of the landlord. 9. Admittedly, no title has been transferred in favour of the tenants under any registered document, as title to any immovable property cannot be transferred without there being any registered document on a duly stamped paper between the parties. The tenants have also not filed any suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and therefore, no title has been acquired by them. 10. As the landlord has not filed any CRP with regard to the wilful default of payment of rents and his bona fide requirement of the premises in question, it may not be just and necessary for this Court to consider those issues. As the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal only on the ground that denial of title is not bona fide, that is the only issue that falls for consideration in this CRP. As the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal only on the ground that denial of title is not bona fide, that is the only issue that falls for consideration in this CRP. As per the oral deposition of PWs.1 and 2 and EX.P-1 sale deed, the landlord became the owner of the premises in question, and therefore, I am of the opinion that denial of title by the tenants is not bona fide. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any infirmity either legal or otherwise to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the long standing tenancy of the petitioners herein, six (6) months time is granted to the petitioners to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord, subject to the condition of the petitioners filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from to-day to the effect that they will vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord on or before 31-12-2006. No costs.