Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1055
2006 (6) ALT 61
V. ESWARAIAH, J.
C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2003
Decided on 14-9-2006.
G. Jaisurya
vs.
Harishanker Sanghi and another
Advocate Appeared
Mr. D. Madhava Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pratap Narayana Sanghi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Central Act, 1960 - Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii) - Eviction - Denial of Title - If tenant denies title of landlord or claims, right of permanent tenancy and if said denial or claim not bonafide, controller shall direct tenant to put landlord in possession of building.
held : In the instant case, the tenants claim right of permanent tenancy. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the said document is not at all a genuine document as the evidence of expert is based only on Xerox copy of EX.R-6 and even otherwise one of the witnesses - R.W.2 has not confirmed the contents of EX.R-6 as he stated that when he went to the shop of the landlord the said document was taken from the pocket of the person who collected the money and signed the same and received the amount. However, as the claim of permanent tenancy has been set up in EX.R-6 the said document is not liable to be received in evidence and the same cannot be treated as permanent tenancy as no landlord would execute such a receipt, more so, when the previous rent agreement EX.R-5 specifically states that the tenancy is for 11 months only and three months advance has been received and the tenants are not entitled to carry out any repairs or alterations but whereas Ex. R-6 receipt goes to show unilateral conditions written only on a ruled paper from a register stating that the landlord has let out the said premises to the tenants permanently on the same monthly rent of Rs.225/- for a period of first 10 years and thereafter with enhancement of rent at 20% for the next 5 years and the tenants are entitled to carry out repairs, additions or alterations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ex. R-6 is not a genuine document and it cannot be said that the claim of perpetual tenancy by the tenants is bona fide.
the tenants on their own had sent the Xerox copy of Ex. R-6 along with some other rental deeds to the expert for his opinion, who based on the said Xerox copy only gave his opinion. However, as discussed above Ex. R-6 was marked only for collateral purpose, as the same was not liable to be received in evidence, as the same requires stamp and registration. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Ex. R-6 cannot be treated as a genuine document in view of the comparative reading of the clauses of EX.R-5 and EX.R-6 receipt and admittedly, EX.R-6 cannot be treated as a document creating permanent tenancy. However, when the said G. Eshwara Rao is not to be seen from 1984 onwards and the way in which his signatures are continued before and after the revenue stamps, Ex. R-6 cannot be treated as a genuine document. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claim of permanent tenancy on the part of the tenants is not bona fide but on remand the lower appellate Court erroneously and without any justification came to the conclusion that the signature on EX.R-6 is that of G. Eshwara Rao. It is nobody s case that the signature on EX.R-6 is not that of G. Eshwara Rao but it is the case of the landlord that Ex.R-6 is not a genuine document and a false claim has been set up creating permanent tenancy as there is every likelihood of making use of signed revenue stamps in the said document. A close perusal of the admitted signatures go to show that the said G. Eshwara Rao used to draw a line beneath his signature but whereas on Ex. R-6 neither there is a line or dot or some continuance after the revenue stamps. Therefore, I am of the opinion that EX.R-6 is not a genuine document and with a mala fide intention to claim permanent tenancy only EX.R-6 has been brought into existence.
This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-2-2003 passed in R.A.No.249 of 1997 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants in R.C.No.266 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and for the purpose of bona fide commencement of business under Sections 1 0(2)(i) and 1 0(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act).
3. Initially the learned Rent Controller allowed the said eviction petition by order dated 9-6-1997 on the ground that the claim of permanent tenancy by the tenants is not bona fide and therefore, they are liable to be evicted on the ground mala fide claim of perpetual lease. Against the said order the tenants preferred an appeal in R.A.No.249 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the appellate Court by judgment dated 27-02-2001 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said judgment the tenants filed CRP. NO.1717 of 2001 on the file of this Court and this Court by order dated 11-12-2001 remitted the matter to the appellate Court for the purpose of giving opportunity to the parties to let in further evidence with regard to the genuineness of EX.R-6 based on which permanent tenancy has been claimed as both the Courts below had not appreciated the matter on the specific ground i.e. the raising of the ground of permanent tenancy in proper perspective. Pursuant to the order of this Court the appellate Court considered the matter afresh and by impugned order dated 03-02-2003 in R.A.No.249 of 1997 held that EX.R-6 has been executed by the father of the landlord stating that it is permanent lease and there is no mala fide intention with regard to the claim of permanent tenancy in view of EX.R-6 being executed by the father of the landlord. Therefore, there is bona fide intention on the part of the tenants in claiming permanent tenancy and accordingly the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. Thus, aggrieved by the said judgment the landlord filed this revision petition.
4. The landlord is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the tenants are hereinafter referred to as the respondents.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises bearing No.2-1-65 & 66 and the respondents are the tenants on a monthly rent of RS.225/-. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the landlord and the tenants. The eviction petition has been filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement of the said premises for the purpose of commencing their family textile business as the petitioner does not have any other business or avocation. It is stated that he was having sufficient experience and also funds to start his own business but as he did not have any other place except the schedule premises he had bona fide requirement of the schedule premises to commence the business.
6. The eviction petition was filed in 1994 and after receipt of summons the tenants filed a counter in April 1995 claiming permanent tenancy and therefore, the landlord got amended his eviction petition as per the orders in I.A.No.399 of 1995 dated 24-11-1995 taking a plea in Para 5(a) as follows:
"The respondents herein have falsely claimed that they are entitled for perpetual lease, which is incorrect. The respondents are not entitled for perpetual lease, as the property in question was not leased out perpetually. The allegation that the petitioners late father had that the property was let out perpetually is incorrect and on this ground also the respondents are liable to be evicted."
7. It is the case of the respondents/tenants that the father of the pe
