Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1072 (AP)

Padarthi Sridhar v. Parvinder Singh Kohili

2023-07-13

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
ORDER : A landlord seeks justice through this revision filed under Section 22(1) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and to set aside the order dated 19.12.2018 of the learned Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.M.A.No.62 of 2015 by which order the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 30.10.2015 of learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.102 of 2013. 2. Respondent herein is the tenant. 3. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri D. Butchi Babu, learned counsel for respondent submitted their respective arguments and cited legal authorities. 4. There is a building situate in Governorpet, Vijayawada. That building is owned by Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad. This building has a ground floor and a first floor. Several tenants are in occupation of this building. One such tenant is Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. He is managing a godown in the said premises. The rent per month is Rs.3,000/-. It seems that he has been a tenant in that premises since 1998. While so, a part of this building was purchased by Sri Padarthi Sridhar under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.2010. The part of the building that is purchased by him consists of a few rooms in which there are tenants. It is in the backdrop of these facts, the litigation emerged between Sri Padarthi Sridhar and Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. Sri Padarthi Sridhar filed R.C.C.No.102 of 2013 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking for eviction of Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. His claim is that he informed to Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili about becoming owner of this property and demanded him to pay rents from January, 2011 but the tenant has not been paying. He got issued a notice dated 26.09.2013 and asked him to vacate the premises and pay the arrear rents. He stated that he requires this property for his personal use and occupation and that this building is more than 50 years old and that the tenant has been altering and changing the physical features of it without his consent and knowledge. He stated that he requires this property for his personal use and occupation and that this building is more than 50 years old and that the tenant has been altering and changing the physical features of it without his consent and knowledge. As against that, Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili filed a counter wherein he claimed that he has been a tenant studiously paying rents to his landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad and the rents have been paid by way of cheques and he was never irregular in paying rents. When he received notice from the petitioner, he contacted his original landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad informing him that he was demanded to pay rents by Sri P. Sridhar and his landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad told him that he never sold this particular piece of property to him and on the other hand, he himself demanded rents for him. Confused by these rival claims, the tenant filed R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and prayed the learned Rent Controller to permit him to deposit the rents till the issues are sorted out between the two rival title holders. Notices were sent to Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad as well as to Sri Padarthi Sridhar. None appeared to contest R.C.C.No.13 of 2014. In those circumstances, that petition was allowed. It is further stated that on 25.06.2012 the petitioner and his followers attempted to demolish the premises and other premises adjacent to it and that resulted in registration of Crime No.176 of 2012 by Governorpet Police Station. At para No.9 of his counter the tenant categorically pleaded that the premises in his occupation as a tenant is not part of the property purchased by the petitioner. He further pleaded that there was no attornment. He denied rest of the allegations. He sought for dismissal of the petition. During enquiry, the learned Rent Controller settled the following points for consideration : 1. Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent with respect to petition schedule premises? 2. Whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents at rate of Rs.3,000/-per month to him from January, 2011? 3. Whether the petitioner requires the schedule premises bonafidely to start his new intended business as prayed by him? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of respondent for the grounds of willful default and bonafide requirement for his personal occupation? 5. 3. Whether the petitioner requires the schedule premises bonafidely to start his new intended business as prayed by him? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of respondent for the grounds of willful default and bonafide requirement for his personal occupation? 5. To what relief? 5. For landlord, there is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.5. For tenant, there is evidence of RWs.1 to 3 and Exs.R.1 to R.5. On considering the material on record and the submissions advanced by both sides, the learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that the petitioner/landlord failed to establish that for the petition schedule property he is the landlord. Finding that there was no jural relationship it answered point No.1 as against the petitioner. In view of its conclusions reached above, the learned Rent Controller felt that there was no legal need to consider the other points and accordingly it dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved by that, landlord moved R.C.C.M.A.No.62 of 2015 before learned Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Appellate Authority considered the entire evidence on record and submissions on both sides and the impugned order before it and it agreed with findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the said appeal. That drove the landlord to file the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner referred to various paragraphs of the orders impugned to submit that both the authorities below committed a grave error in recording a finding that the sale deed under which this revision petitioner became owner of the property does not contain a recital about attornment of tenancy disputed herein and it was on that premise they dismissed his petition and appeal and that is erroneous and against law. Learned counsel submits that the purport of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the judgments of various Courts and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India indicate that on transfer of title the tenancy should be deemed to have been attorned and the transfer deed does not require a recital about attornment. In support of it, learned counsel cited Gopi alias Goverdhannath (d) by LRs. v. Sri Ballabh Vyas, AIR 2022 SC 5248 . In support of it, learned counsel cited Gopi alias Goverdhannath (d) by LRs. v. Sri Ballabh Vyas, AIR 2022 SC 5248 . Learned counsel further submits that the tenant is in illegal occupation of the property and he has not been vacating and has not been paying rents and requests this Court to exercise powers under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. and strike off the defence and cited Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar, AIR Online 2022 SC 983. 7. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent submits that the rival disputes before the learned Rent Controller is to the effect that the tenant never denied his occupation of the premises as a tenant, he never denied the rights of his original landlord and his contention has always been that the present revision petitioner has never become owner of that part of the premises which has been in the occupation of this respondent as a tenant and it is in that way there has been no jural relationship between them. Learned counsel further submits that attornment is automatic and he does not dispute ruling cited by the learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the aspect of attornment was considered by the authorities below only with a view to find out whether there was enough proof demonstrated by the landlord that he became owner of the premises that has been in occupation of the present respondent. Learned counsel submits that on concurrent findings of facts the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is very limited and unless there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety or patent injustice, this Court cannot disturb the impugned orders. In support of it, learned counsel cited Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 and Tuunuguntla Enterprises v. Majeti Venktata Ramakoti Mutyalu, 2016 (2) ALD 763 (AP). 8. The point that falls for consideration is : “Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality or irregularity or impropriety requiring interference? POINT: 9. Record indicates Ex.P.1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 20.12.2010 standing in favour of the present revision petitioner. He purchased a part of the building which consists of other parts over which he does not own title. POINT: 9. Record indicates Ex.P.1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 20.12.2010 standing in favour of the present revision petitioner. He purchased a part of the building which consists of other parts over which he does not own title. The question that fell for consideration before the lower authorities was whether the premises in occupation of respondent which originally belonged to Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad was alienated by the said original owner in favour of the present revision petitioner under Ex.P.1-registered sale deed. It was in that context, the point that fell for consideration before learned Rent Controller was about existence or otherwise of landlord and tenant jural relationship between these parties. The contention of the tenant/respondent herein that the portion in occupation of him was not alienated by original landlord to the present revision petitioner is clear from his counter. That particular contention is noticed by the learned Rent Controller in para No.3 of its order. It was in that context there was need between parties to establish whether the petition schedule property was alienated by original owner in favour of the present revision petitioner or not. That disputed fact could be proved by producing the evidence of the original owner Sri Kondanda Ram Prasad and by verification of contents of Ex.P.1. Revision petitioner, who claimed to be the present owner of that disputed premises, was expected to adduce the evidence of his predecessors in title. He did not choose to examine him. His failure to examine him as a witness gains relevance in the context of specific stand taken by the tenant in his counter and in his evidence wherein he stated that subsequent to receiving Ex.P.2-legal notice from this revision petitioner he informed this fact to Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad and asked him as to who is the present landlord for this premises and it was stated that Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad told him that he did not alienate this part of the property to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the lapse was there on part of the revision petitioner in failure to adduce proper evidence. Therefore, the lapse was there on part of the revision petitioner in failure to adduce proper evidence. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 filed by the respondent seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rents Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad did not appear and contest and that itself is an indication that he alienated the property to this revision petitioner. This contention has no force. As a matter of fact, this revision petitioner also did not participate in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and he chose to remain ex parte. Respondent/tenant had to file R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 only because the present revision petitioner was contending about his ownership of the disputed premises. Referring to this aspect of the matter, learned Rent Controller at para No.10 of its order recorded that by virtue of the averments in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and the absence of the present revision petitioner and the earlier holder of title even in that proceedings, the jural relationship between the present petitioner and present respondent was not established. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent submitted that in Ex.P.1 for the property purchased by this revision petitioner boundaries are mentioned and as per those boundaries, the property in possession of this respondent does not fall within the schedule mentioned therein. Perhaps it is this contention that made the authorities below to conclude that the disputed premises was not part of the property purchased by this revision petitioner under Ex.P.1. 10. To the extent of property purchased by the revision petitioner under Ex.P.1 there are other tenants. The lower Authority as well as Appellate Authority have specifically referred to the recitals in Ex.P.1 indicating that one Mr. V. Jagadish is a tenant in the property that was purchased by this revision petitioner. Attornment of that tenancy is also mentioned therein. Conspicuous omission in Ex.P.1 is about any reference to the premises occupied by the present respondent as a tenant. It is on these facts that came up in evidence the authorities below concluded that the absence of attornment with reference to the present respondent is another indication to show that the premises in the possession of respondent was not part of Ex.P.1. It is only in that context of the facts authorities below discussed the absence of attornment. The lower appellate authority at para No.16 made this aspect very clear. It is only in that context of the facts authorities below discussed the absence of attornment. The lower appellate authority at para No.16 made this aspect very clear. It recorded that if really the portion that is under the occupation of the present respondent is purchased by the present revision petitioner, attornment is automatic irrespective of the fact whether it was recorded in Ex.P.1-sale deed or not. He seems to have inferred that non-mentioning of the name of the present respondent for the purpose of attornment is a positive proof to show that, that part of the property was not purchased by the present revision petitioner. Thus, it is not as though that the lower authorities failed to recognize Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act or about automatic attornment of tenancy when there was change in the title of the landlord. It is true a cursory reading of the orders of the both authorities below would give an impression that major part of their discussion was given with reference to attornment. However, that by itself did not make the authorities to conclude the disputed issue as to whether this revision petitioner is the landlord for the premises occupied by this respondent. It is in these circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority adverted to the evidence on record and appreciated it in accordance with law and reached to appropriate conclusions. Though learned counsel for revision petitioner fervently submitted that respondent/tenant has not been paying rents and therefore, his defence shall be struck off, this Court finds no relevance of that contention for deciding the present revision petition. It is irrelevant for consideration since both the authorities below as well as this Court have reached to the same conclusion that there has been no material to say that the present revision petitioner has become owner of the premises that is under occupation of the respondent. Therefore, this contention is negatived. There is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, the point is answered against the revision petitioner. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.