SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Gopi @ Goverdhannath (D) by LRs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri Ballabh Vyas – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6827 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27679 of 2018)
Decided On : 22-09-2022
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Scope – Re-appreciation of evidence is not the normal rule and power thereunder would be sparingly exercised where findings are absolutely perverse – A finding can be said to be perverse if it is founded on no evidence to support the same or totally against weight of evidence – So also, it can be said to be perverse if material evidence was missed out for consideration or a totally irrelevant and immaterial aspect formed foundation for such a finding. (Para 10)
(B) Rent and Eviction – Default in Payment of rent and tenant’s denial of title of landlord – Respondent-Petitioner had adduced documentary evidence of outright purchase of petition schedule property under registered sale deed – On behalf of respondents therein no admissible evidence to outweigh the same to establish their bonafides in denial of title of respondent herein, was adduced – Concurrent findings of Courts below on the issue that title of respondent was malafidely denied by appellants is rightful conclusion on appreciation of facts and evidence obtained in this case and is not infected with perversity – It calls for no interference – Attornment by lessee is not necessary for transfer of property leased out to him – Eviction order upheld. [Sections 9 and 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 10(2) (i), 10(2) (vi) and 10(3) (a) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960] (Paras 22, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
In this appeal by Special Leave the appellants assail the judgment and order dated 10.07.2018 in Civil Revision Petition No. 2752 of 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. It arises out of R.C. No. 262 of 2008 brought by the respondent herein under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”), for the eviction of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 herein and the other respondents therein, who are all the successors-in-interest of the original tenant.
Findings of Court:
To get the benefit of the extended time thus granted, the appellants shall file the usual undertaking before this court within a period of two weeks that they would give vacant possession of the petition schedule property without any demur to the respondent and also that they would pay Rs. 3000/- to as monthly rent during the extended period of two months.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by Special Leave the appellants assail the judgment and order dated 10.07.2018 in Civil Revision Petition No. 2752 of 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. It arises out of R.C. No. 262 of 2008 brought by the respondent herein under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”), for the eviction of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 herein and the other respondents therein, who are all the successors-in-interest of the original tenant Shri Balraj, being his wife and children, from the petition schedule property. The petition schedule property is a Mulgi (small shop), admeasuring 29 square yards, abutting main road of Mangalhat, Hyderabad. They were sought to be evicted on three-fold grounds viz., non-payment/default in payment of rent, [(S.10(2)(i)], tenant’s denial of the title of the landlord not being bonafide [(S.10(2)(vi)] and landlord’s right to be put in the possession of property for his own business use [(S.10(3)(a)].
3. As per the order in R.C. No.262 of 2008 dated 07.11.2015, it was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to vacate the petition schedule property and to handover its vacant physical possession to the petitioner therein (the respondent herein) within 3 months from the date of the order. The unsuccessful respondents therein took up the matter before the Appellate Authority, viz., Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, as Rent Appeal No.57 of 2016. The Appellate Authority considered the grounds of attack and found them meritless and consequently, dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the same that the stated Civil Revision Petition was filed before the High Court, which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment.
4. As a matter of fact, pending the proceedings before the rent controller, the wife and two sons of Late Balraj, who were also arrayed as respondents along with the appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein, died. Later, during the pendency of the present SLP the original petitioner No.1, the other son of Late Balraj also died and subsequently, his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos. 1.1 and 1.2. The proforma respondents viz., respondents 2 to 4 were deleted from the array of parties, at the instance of the appellants, as per order dated 11.10.2015 passed in I.A. No. 147594 of 2018. Thus, the present proceedings are being pressed into and pursued by the original petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and the other petitioner Nos.1.1 and 1.2, who are the legal heirs of original petitioner No.1, in the present SLP. Hence, hereinafter, in this appeal they would be referred to as ‘the appellants’ and the petitioner in R.C. No.262 of 2008, who is the respondent in this appeal, would be referred to as ‘the respondent’, unless otherwise mentioned specifically.
5. Succinctly stated the case of the respondent (the petitioner in RC No. 262 of 2008) is as follows: -
The petition schedule property is a small shop (Mulgi) bearing Municipal D. No. 14-1-22 as described hereinbefore. One Smt. Phool Kumari was its owner. She was the original landlord and late Shri Bhandari Balraj (the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) was the tenant, of the said shop. In the year 1985, the father of the respondent by name Vasudev Vyas purchased the petition schedule property from the aforesaid Smt. Phool Kumari in the name of the respondent Ballabh Vyas, then a minor aged 10 years, under Ex.P-3 registered sale deed dated 27.06.1985. The pre-existing tenancy created between late Sh. Balraj and the said original landlord was oral in nature and the rent initially fixed was enhanced from time to time. On 27.06.1985 itself Ext. P-1 rental deed was executed between Late Sh. Balraj and the respondent, represented by his natural father and guardian Vasudev Vyas, on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-per
Kurapati Venkata Mallayyaand Anr. v. Thondepu Ramaswami And Co. & Anr.
Attornment by lessee is not necessary for transfer of property leased out to him.
The court has the jurisdiction to examine the bonafide or malafide denial of title by the tenant and can go into the question of title. An unregistered agreement of sale does not confer any right, ti....
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
As per the first proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is State Government or Central Government or other public authority notified under ....
The tenant must provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the landlord's title as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.
A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord, and genuine need for premises must be established without alternative accommodation for eviction to be warranted. Adverse possession claims require ....
The court clarified that a tenant's denial of a landlord's title may be assessed for bona fide elements; erroneous and perverse findings from lower authorities warrant court intervention.
The judgment establishes the principle that in statutory proceedings, the Authorities can incidentally go into the question of title to determine the proceedings before them, but the question of titl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.