Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 427
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
V.Murali Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Servel Traders rep., by its Proprietor, a.Sudhakar - Respondent
C.R.P.No.1250/94
Decided On : 08-04-95
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. T. Sankar Rao, Mr. J. Venugopal Rao
Headnote:AP BUILDINGS (Lease, Rent and Eviction) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Secs 10(2)(vi) and 11 - Relationship of landlord and tenant - Denied by tenant in an application filed by landlord under Sec11 for deposit of arrears of rent pending eviction petition - Denial of relationship by setting up a family settlement and an agreement of sale executed by late father of landlord in favour of wife of tenant - Application under Sec11 allowed by Rent Controller but was dismissed by order of appellate Court which was reversed by High Court - Dismissal of eviction petition later by Rent Controller Appeal by tenant allowed after making further enquiry on ground that tenant has not denied title of landlord but only denied relationship of landlord and tenant - Not sustainable
HELD: The order of the appellate court is not sustainable The denial of title need not be anterior to the petition tiled under the Rent Control Act If such denial categoric it should be, is to be found in the pleadings and rei1erated in the evidence, that would afford sufficient jurisdiction to order eviction under Sec10(2)(vi) of the Act unless of course, such denial is found to be bona fide In this case, the respondent-tenant has pleaded that pursuant to a settlement between the landlord and his daughter who is the wife of the petitioner, and an agreement of sale, the 2nd respondent s wife-R-3 is alleged to be in possession of the suit house in her own right It is not necessary that the tenant should have claimed title in himself
The petitioner is bent upon denying the title of the landlord by seeing up a family settlement and an agreement of sale in favour of his wife
A vested right to hold the property pursuant to a settlement between the landlord and his wife was pleaded apart from his own rights over the property Then, in the appeal it was pleaded that the denial of title was bona fide
( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent-and Eviction) control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is filed by the landlord of a building bearing No. 1-2-333/b situate atgagan Mahal Road, Hyderabad. The original owner of the building was one V. S. Ganapathiram who is the father-in- law of the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent in his capacity as proprietor of M/sservel Traders (1st respondent) took the building onlease on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- on 26-4-1974. Alleging that there was default in payment of rent and on certain other grounds which it is not necessary to refer to, Sri Ganapathiram filed an eviction petition under Sec. 10 of the Act which was numbered as R. C. No. 408/85. The filing of this Rent Control case was preceded by two suits filed by Sri Ganapathiram for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The suits were dismissed so far as the relief of possession was concerned. Thereafter, the present Rent Case was filed. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord filed I. A. 1617/85 under Sec. 11 of the Act praying the Rent Controller to direct the respondent-tenant to pay a sum of rs. 62,192/- towards arrears of rent and till then not to permit the tenant to contest the eviction petition. That application was dismissed by the Rent controller. After the dismissal of the Said I. A. , the landlord Sri Ganapathiram died on 15-7-1988. The petitioner herein who is the son of late Ganapathiram came on record as his legal representative claiming. exclusive right over the building under a registered will executed by his father. Against the order of the rent Controller dismissing the application under Sec. 11, the petitioner herein filed an appeal - R. A. No. 357/88. During the pendency of the appeal, the 3rd respondent herein who is the daughter of Sri Ganapathiram and the wife of the 2nd respondent and one Sri V. Aditya the second son of la te Ganapathiram were brought on record as respondents 3 and 4. It may be noted here that Sri. Aditya did not put forward any claim over the demised property. The Appellate authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) by an order dated 21-3-1990 set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the matter to the Rent controller directing him to enquire into and dispose of the main eviction petition itself. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision in c. R. P. No. 2077/90. This Court by an order dated 26-6-1991, allowed the C. R. F. on the short ground that the Appellate Authority shouldnothaveremanded the matter in view of an earlier decision of this Court and set aside the order of the appellate Authority who was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Thereafter, evidence-both oral and documentary, was allowed to be adduced by the appellate authority. The petitioner who was examined as P. W. 1 before the Rent Controller was recalled and cross-examined. Respondent No. 2 (tenant) and Respondent No. 3 (tenant s wife) were also examined as R. Ws 2 and 3. In the counter filed in reply to Sec. 11 application, the 2nd respondent took the stand that the Civil suits filed by the landlord for arrears of rent and mesne profits were pending and therefore the application was not maintainable. Another and more important point of defence taken was that there was a settlement between the petitioner s father and 3rd respondent (wife of tenant) at the instance of common friends and pursuant to that settlement, the 3rd respondent has a vested right to the suit property apart from his own rights in law.
( 2 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the following point was framed for consideration by the Appellate Authority : Whether the denial of title of the petitioner for the demised premises by respondents 1 to 3 is bona fide; If so, whether LA. 1617/85 is liable to be dismissed ? On a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence and the probabilities, the Appellate Authority in hi
