Back
1992 Supreme(AP) 596
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.NEELADRI RAO
G.David @ Devaiah - Appellant
Versus
Saramma - Respondent
C.R.P. Nos.1419 of 92 etc.
Decided On : 11-16-92
Advocates Appeared :
Sri. G. Anjappa, Sri. D. Ramalinga Swamy
Headnote:A.P. BUILDINGS (lease, Rent and Eviction) CONTROL ACT, Secs. 10(1) Proviso, 19(2) (vi) and 11 (1) - Eviction petition filed by landlord against tenant- Denial of title by tenant - Enquiry has to be made by Rent controller as to whether denial is bonafide or not - If denial is bonafide eviction petition has to be dismissed - Otherwise eviction can be ordered without further enquiry in regard to other grounds and no order need be passed under Sec. 11(1) - if tenant disputes relationship of landlord and tenant and admits title regular enquiry is to be made if an application is made under Sec.11 and necessary order is to be passed.
HELD: Whenever the tenant devices the title of the landlord in the eviction petition filed under Sec. 10 of the Rent Control Act and even if the he chooses to file an application under Sec.11, there will be only on enquiry for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the denial of title of the landlord is bonafide or not. If it is the former, the eviction petition had to be ordered without any further enquiry is regard to the other grounds alleged in the eviction petition. In such a case, there may be any occasion or need to pass an order under Sec. 11 (1) of the Rent Control Act directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within the time stipulated or to pass an order under Sec.11 (4) if the tenant fails to deposit the same.
But where the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant, while admitting the title of the landlord, it is not only necessary to make an elaborate regular enquiry in case an application is filed in order to determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted and if a finding is given to the effect that such a relationship subsists, then it is necessary to pass order under Sec.11 (1) of the Rent Control, Act directing the tenant to pay the arrears within the stipulated time, if there are arrears failing which an order Sec.11 (4) will be passed, and it is also necessary to enquire under Sec.10 in order to decide whether there are any grounds for eviction. Of course, if in the enquiry under Sec.11, Rent Controller holds that the relationship of a landlord and tenant does not subsist, then it is a case of not only dismissing the application under Sec.11 but also a case of dismissal of the petition filed under Sec.18, for the Rent Controller has no right to pass an order of eviction unless there is relationship of landlord and tenant.
( 1 ) ALL these revision petitions are directed against the orders of the Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. Nos. 363,350,366,365,367 and 364 of 1991 respectively. All these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order as they are against the common judgment and as the same points are involved.
( 2 ) THE facts which give rise to these proceedings are briefly as under. The respondents in all the eviction petitions were the tenants of late Shantamma, the original owner of the premises, the various portions of which were let out by her to these tenants. The petitioner, who is the revision petitioner in all these revision petitions, filed the eviction petitions against these respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The contention for the eviction petitioner is that he purchased this premises from late Shanthamma under registered sale deed dated 5-5-1980 and all these six tenants attorned to him orally. Smt. Vimalamma, the respondent in R. CNos. 962 and 964 of 1988 claimed that her mother, the original owner of this premises, executed a registered gift deed in her favour on 31-1-1986 and she is the absolute owner of the entire premises. Sri Suresh, who is the respondent in R. C. No. 961/88 stated thathe vacated the portion for which the said R. C. number was filed even by the time the said eviction petition was filed againsthim. Sri Shankar, the respondent in R. CNo. 963 of 1988, admitted that he paid rent to the revision petitioner for three months i. e. , November, December, 1983 and January 1984 as per the counter-foils Exs. P-15 to P. 17. M/s. Vimalamma,pentamma and Saramma, the respondents in other eviction petitions, pleaded that they never attorned to the revision petitioner and that the latter had no title in regard to the plaintschedule property. They also pleaded that the revision petitioner had not taken any steps during the life time of Santhamma, who died on 15-8-1987, except the issual of legal notice as per Ex. P-11 in September, 1983. During the pendency of the eviction petitions, the revision petitioner filed applications under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short rentcontrol Act ) praying for a direction to the various respondents todeposit the arrears of rent, failing which he should be put in possession of portions covered by the various eviction petitions. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate authority held that the revision petitioner had title to this premises, but the I. As. and appeals thereon were dismissed by holding that there was no attornment by the respondents. The said orders are challenged in these revision petitions.
( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the respondents in various eviction petitions were inducted into the respective portions as tenants by late Shanthamma. They could not have a right to question the title of Shanthamma as Section 116 of the evidence Act which incorporated the principle of estoppel debars them from challenging the title of Shanthamma. But the revision petitioner filed eviction petitions by alleging that he purchased this premises from Shantamma, the original owner under registered sale deed dated 5-5-1980 and on the same day all the respondents attorned to him as tenants and he also issued notice as per ex. P-11 in September 1983 to these respondents and except Sri Shankar, the others did not pay him rent and Sri Shankar paid rent to him for only November, december, 1983 and January 1984 and thus all these respondents are liable to be evicted for wilful default in payment of rent. He also filed applications under section 11 of the Rent Control Act. As already observed, both the learned Rent controller and the Appellate authority negatived the plea of the revision petitioner in regard to attornment, though held in favour of the petitioner in regard to the title and accordingly dismissed the I. As. and Appeals respectively.
( 4 ) WHIL
