Back
2005 Supreme(AP) 694
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.NARAYANA
Cherukuri Seshadri - Appellant
Versus
Veeramallu Koteswara Rao (died) - Respondent
Decided On : 08-03-05
Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 10(2)(vi)(8) and 2(vi) - Denial of Title - Landlord - A person receiving rents and sub-lets the premises with the consent of owner comes under the definition landlord - Eviction petition maintained by such person, maintainable.
Held : Clear evidence of P. W. 1 and specific stand was taken even by the original owner that the whole premises was taken by the landlord and a portion was let- out to the tenant by the landlord and in the light of the Explanation and also in the light of the definition of the landlord in Section 2 (vi) of the Act, inasmuch as from the beginning the landlord alone had been receiving rents and also subsequent thereto, an agreement of sale also had been executed in his favour, he would fall within the definition of landlord and it is within the knowledge of the tenant. It is also pertinent to note that the same stand had been taken even by the tenant in r. C. C. No. 7/82, marked as Ex. A-2. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the tenant was unsuccessful in the litigation commenced by him for the relief of specific performance as against the original owner and all these parties were parties to those proceedings also. Hence, the tenant having clear knowledge about the present landlord giving a portion to him, collecting rents from the beginning with the express consent of the original owner and having knowledge about all the aspects had specifically denied the title of the landlord knowing fully well that he is the landlord for the purposes of the Act. Apart from it, he had initiated some action as against the original owner only by filing R. C. C. No. 7/82 despite his knowledge about all these aspects. The conduct of the tenant in fighting several litigations also and having knowledge of all the aspects, taking such a stand would definitely amount to mala fide denial of title so as to attract the ground specified under section 10 of the Act. Apart from this aspect of the matter, Section 10 (8) of the Act also may be looked into which clearly specifics that notwithstanding anything in this section, no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord, be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant. In the light of Ex. A-6, this condition also is satisfied and hence, viewed from any angle, the order made by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity, whatsoever, and the same is liable to be confirmed. As already referred to supra, inasmuch as the legal representatives of the landlord at present are succeeding on the sole ground, which was clearly upheld by the appellate Authority in the light of the findings recorded, the other grounds need not be adverted to and in view of the same, the c. R. P. filed by the tenant shall stand dismissed and no further orders are required to be made in C. R. P. No. 4257/97 and the same is hereby closed.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as hereunder:- veeramallu Koteswar Rao, the landlord, filed R. C. C. No. 1/91 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal district Munsiff, Bapatla, praying for eviction of Cherukuri Seshadri-R-1. in the said R. C. C. , under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. The case of the landlord in nutshell is that the petition schedule house originally belonging to B odaraju venkatappayya Sarma, the 2nd respondent in R. C. C. No. 1/91, shown as R-2 in R. C. A. No. 2/93, who died pending appeal and respondents 3 to 5 therein were added as legal representatives in I. A. No. 140/95, let- out the entire house to the landlord and with his consent and knowledge, the landlord had let-out the northern half portion to the tenant Cherukuri Seshadri (forthe purpose of convenience referred to as tenant ) and Veeramallu Koteswar rao (hereinafter referred to as landlord ) had been occupying the southern half and let-out the northern half to the said tenant. Thus, the landlord alone had been collecting the rents, since the owner was employed elsewhere and living at a place other than Bapatla. It is also the case of the landlord that he entered into a contract of sale for the entire house for a consideration of rs. 26,000/- and a duly stamped agreement was executed on 2-5-1982 and the entire consideration was paid to the owner. While so, when the sale deed was about to be taken, the tenant filed O. S. No. 44/82 on the file of subordinate Judge, Bapatla, for the relief of specific performance of an alleged contract of sale between him and the original owner and the landlord herein got himself impleaded in the said suit and the suit was dismissed and the matter was carried by way of Appeal a. S. No. 90/88 on the file of District Judge, guntur and the same was dismissed and by the date of filing of the R. C. C. , second Appeal No. 386/90 was pending on the file of this Court. But however, at present, the same also is not pending and the Second Appeal had been dismissed. It is also stated that r. C. C. No. 7/82 was filed by the tenant as against the original owner only for deposit or rents, but however, it was pleaded therein that he used to pay rents to the landlord, as nominee of the original owner. The pleadings in o. S. No. 44/82 also had been referred to and it is stated that it is not known whether the tenant is depositing the rents into Court in R. C. C. No. 7/82. Specific stand was taken that inasmuch as the landlord had been receiving rents to the knowledge of the tenant and with the express consent of the original owner, he would fall within the definition of the landlord under the Act and there is deliberate denial of title of the landlord though the tenant has knowledge about the payment of rents to the landlord and subsequent thereto, the agreement of sale being executed in his favour. The grounds of wilful default,
