Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, M.JAGANADHA RAO
Jeeth Kaur - Appellant
Versus
P.Kondalamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-82
TENANCY RIGHTS - STATUTORY TENANTS - SURVIVING SPOUSE, SON, OR DAUGHTER - FRESH AGREEMENT OF TENANCY - RES JUDICATA - JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE - RENT CONTROL ACT - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, widow, daughter, and sons of deceased tenant Harnam Singh, filed a suit for declaration of their right of occupancy as tenants of a building belonging to defendant Kondalamma. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed the decision, holding that a fresh agreement of tenancy between the defendant and defendant No. 2, Harnam Singh's son, terminated the plaintiffs' tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were statutory tenants under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act and that their rights could not be extinguished by a fresh agreement between the defendant and defendant No. 2. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the appellate court's finding of a fresh agreement of tenancy and that the decision of the rent authorities under the Rent Control Act, which held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was not final and did not operate as res judicata.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were statutory tenants under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act. 2. Whether a fresh agreement of tenancy between the defendant and defendant No. 2 terminated the plaintiffs' tenancy. 3. Whether the decision of the rent authorities under the Rent Control Act, which held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was final and operated as res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs were statutory tenants under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act because they were the surviving spouse, daughter, and sons of the deceased tenant Harnam Singh and had been living with him in the building as members of his family up to his death. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to support the appellate court's finding of a fresh agreement of tenancy between the defendant and defendant No. 2. 3. The court held that the decision of the rent authorities under the Rent Control Act, which held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was not final and did not operate as res judicata because it was a decision on a jurisdictional issue and not on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, and decreed the plaintiff's suit.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. The first plaintiff heera Bai is the widow of one Harnam singh. The 2nd plaintiff is the daughter and plaintiffs 3 and 4 and 2nd defendant are the sons. The suit is filed for a declaration of the plaintiffs right of occupancy as tenants of building bearing No. 4-7-649 situate in Esamia bazar, Hyderabad belonging to the first defendant kondalamma.
( 3 ) HARNAM singh, the husband of the first plaintiff was inducated into the suit building as tenant by the predecessor-in-title of defendant No. 1 plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No. 2 were residing with Harnam singh in the suit building paying the rents regularly. Harnam singh died on 18-9-1957. Even after the death of Harnam singh, plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 continued to reside in the suit building. Defendant No. 2 was paying the rent up to November 2 along with his family shifted to a police quarter allotted to him by the Government plaintiffs 1 to 4 continued to reside in the suit building. Defendant No. 1 received the rent till November. 1967. after defendant No. 2 shifted from the suit building when the rent was tendered by plaintiffs 1 to 4 for December. 1967 defendant No. 1 refused to receive the rent. After issuing a notice to defendant No. 1 to specify the bank in which the rent has to be deposited for which there was no reply, the first plaintiff filed R. c. No. 234 of 1968 in the Court of the rent controller, Hyderabad under S. 8 of the Andhra pradesh buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act and the same was allowed on 25-3-1970. Defendant No. 1 preferred Rent Appeal No. 516 of 1970 and it was allowed on 26-12-1971 holding that there was no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. Plaintiff No. 1 filed C. R. P. NO. 609 of 1972 in the High Court challenging the decision in the rent appeal and the same was dismissed on 7-2-1973 with a direction that plaintiff No. 1 may withdraw the rents deposited by her. Notwithstanding the direction, the first plaintiff has not withdrawn the amounts from the Court of the Rent controller. After the decision of the High Court plaintiffs 1 to 4 filed the present suit for a declaration of their rights of occupancy contending under S. 8 of the Rent decision is void and inoperative and that the plaintiffs must be deemed to be tenants after the death of harnam singh.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 did not contest the suit Defendant No. 1 opposed the suit contending that after the death of harnam singh, Defendant No. 2 became the tenant the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were not residing with harnam singh at the time of his death and the plaintiff No. 1 started claiming tenancy only after defendant No. 2 left the premises Defendant No. 1 further contended that the decision under the provisions of the Rent control Act the plaintiff no. 1 is not the tenant is final and the same cannot be agitated in a civil Court. She also contended that since the plaintiffs are claiming tenancy through the deceased tenant late harnam singh which claim has already been rejected, it does not make any difference even if the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendant No. 2 were not parties to the Rent control proceedings initiated by the first plaintiff and that the decision of the Rent controller is binding on plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendant No. 2 on a consideration of the material on record the trial Court found that the decision in Rent appeal No. 516 of 1970 is not final. That the plaintiffs are entitled to have the right of occupancy established in the civil Court and that the suit is maintainable that the plaintiffs must be deemed to be tenants after the death of harnam singh and that they were continuously depositing the rents. The trial Court specificall
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
