Back
1994 Supreme(AP) 343
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
V.Murali Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Servel traders rep., by its Proprietor - Respondent
Decided On : 08-04-94
The Appellate Authority's finding in a Section 11 petition is binding on the Rent Controller in a Section 10 eviction petition.
Headnote:
DENIAL OF LANDLORD'S TITLE - BONA FIDE - SECTION 11 PETITION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S FINDING - BINDING ON RENT CONTROLLER - EVICTION - SECTION 10 PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant denied landlord's title in a Section 11 petition under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The Appellate Authority found the denial to be not bona fide. The Rent Controller, relying on the Appellate Authority's finding, ordered eviction under Section 10 of the Act. The Appellate Court set aside the Rent Controller's order, holding that the Appellate Authority's finding was not binding on the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority's finding in the Section 11 petition was binding on the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller was not required to make an independent enquiry on the question of denial of title. The Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Rent Controller's order.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority's finding in a Section 11 petition is binding on the Rent Controller in a Section 10 eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Full Bench of the High Court in Chaganlal v. Narsingh Pershad held that the decision of the Rent Controller in a Section 11 petition is final and binding on the Rent Controller in a Section 10 eviction petition. This principle was reiterated in C. David and Devaiah v. Saramma. The Appellate Authority's powers are co-extensive with those of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority's finding in a Section 11 petition is therefore as much a finding that should be taken note of by the Rent Controller as his own finding for the purpose of deciding the petition under Section 10.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Court, and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
( 1 ) ORDER: This C. R. P. under Section 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 at gagan 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/s Servel Traders (1st respondent) took the building on lease 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 Section 10 of the Act which was numbered as rc 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. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord filed I. A. 1617/85 under Section 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 Section 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 late 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 me 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 CRP no. 2077/90. This Court by an order dated 26-6-1991, allowed the C. R. P. on the short ground that the Appellate Audiority should not have remanded the matter in view of in earlier decision of this Court and set aside the order of the Appellate Audiority who was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Thereafter, evidence-both oral and documentary, was allowed to be adduced by the appellate audiority. 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 Section 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 fadier 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 appellants 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 his order dated 2-2-1993 answered
