2010 Supreme(SC) 203

2010 (2) Supreme 225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Chittoor Chegaiah & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 012 of 2002
Decided on : 8-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A court is barred from entertaining an issue which has already been decided previously by any court of law.
2. The pre-condition for establishing the tenant-landlord relationship is that the landlord should have reserved for himself the right to evict the tenant.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure ,1908- Section11-Principle of Resjudicata-Applicability of-A.P.Tenancy Act-Section 13-Appeals against judgment passed by High Court in Revision Petition whereby and whereunder High Court had dismissed the petition filed by appellants-Plea of Appellants in the instant case that the decision of High Court in A.S. No. 130 of 1973 fully resolved the issues arising in the present case and,thus, would bar their agitation now- Held High Court in that instance had held two things, that court did not have jurisdiction over matters owing to the special process prescribed under Tenancy Act; and the title with respect of tenancy rights was perfected owing to adverse possession-These two rulings were not in conflict with each other, and were equally binding- The jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted only to a limited extent, i.e. with respect to eviction of tenants and possession of the property, as procedure for that was provided under the Act- But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with respect to determination of title of property-Appellants seem to have misunderstood import of the High Court decision while relying on it for the purposes of res judicata- The court, in no uncertain terms, held that the title of ownership belonged to present respondents, but the present appellants had title with respect of tenancy rights- This decision was perfected by non-appeal and was binding on the parties-Thus, the present appellants are not the owners of property, but tenants on conditions prescribed under permanent lease patta dated 11.03.1931 - Hence held that decision of High Court in 1973 would not bar any proceedings under the Tenancy Act as the issue decided by the court in that instance was merely the tenancy title in favour of the appellants, while the present case was eviction of tenants under Section 13 of the Act-Apart from that a person shall qualify to be a landlord under meaning of the Act if he is entitled to evict the tenant-No reason why a permanent lease which provides terms would not result in a tenant-landlord relationship since it is implied in such an agreement that non fulfillment of the prescribed terms would give the right to the landlord to evict the tenant-One such term can be payment of periodic rent, which exists in the present case- Thus, the respondents in present case do qualified as landlords-Hence present proceedings emerging from the ruling of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the A.P. Tenancy Act not suffered from any legal infirmity as the proceedings are not barred by res judicata- Furthermore, the parties qualify as tenant-landlord and are, thus, amenable to jurisdiction of the Tenancy Act- In view of categorical finding of Appellate Authority that tenants had committed default in payment of rent and never paid rent, they were liable to be evicted as per Section 13 of the Act which was rightly affirmed by High Court- No reason to interfere in the order of High Court- Appeals dismissed. (Paras 17 to 21)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against judgment passed by High Court in Revision Petition whereby and whereunder High Court had dismissed the petition filed by appellants.Plea of Appellants in the instant case was that the decision of High Court in A.S. No. 130 of 1973fully resolved the issues arising in the present case and,thus, would bar their agitation now.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held High Court in that instance had held two things, that court did not have jurisdiction over matters owing to the special process prescribed under Tenancy Act; and the title with respect of tenancy rights was perfected owing to adverse possession. These two rulings were not in conflict with each other, and were equally binding. The jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted only to a limited extent, i.e. with respect to eviction of tenants and possession of the property, as procedure for that was provided under the Act. But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with respect to determination of title of property.Appellants seem to have misunderstood import of the High Court decision while relying on it for the purposes of res judicata. The court, in no uncertain terms, held that the title of ownership belonged to present respondents, but the present appellants had title with respect of tenancy rights. This decision was perfected by non-appeal and was binding on the parties.Thus, the present appellants are not the owners of property, but tenants on conditions prescribed under permanent lease patta dated 11.03.1931 . Hence held that decision of High Court in 1973 would not bar any proceedings under the Tenancy Act as the issue decided by the court in that instance was merely the tenancy title in favour of the appellants, while the present case was eviction of tenants under Section 13 of the Act.Apart from that a person shall qualify to be a landlord under meaning of the Act if he is entitled to evict the tenant.No reason why a permanent lease which provides terms would not result in a tenant-landlord relationship since it is implied in such an agreement that non fulfillment of the prescribed terms would give the right to the landlord to evict the tenant.One such term can be payment of periodic rent, which existed in the present case. Thus, the respondents in present case do qualified as landlords.Hence present proceedings emerging from the ruling of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the A.P. Tenancy Act not suffered from any legal infirmity as the proceedings were not barred by res judicata. Furthermore, the parties qualified as tenant-landlord and were, thus, amenable to jurisdiction of the Tenancy Act. In view of categorical finding of Appellate Authority that tenants had committed default in payment of rent and never paid rent, they were liable to be evicted as per Section 13 of the Act which was rightly affirmed by High Court. No reason found to interfere in the order of High Court. Appeals were dismissed.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.