Point of Law: If Controller finds that the denial of title or claim for permanent tenancy of the tenant was not bona fide, he shall order eviction of the tenant but if he finds otherwise, he shall reject the application of the landlord and in that event bar on civil court’s jurisdiction would stand lifted and landlord would become entitled to approach the civil Court to establish his title and seek eviction on any of the grounds on which Controller could have directed eviction.

ORDER:

This Revision Petition is directed against the decree and order, dated 28-07-2009 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Controller Cases at Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal confirming the order, dated 04-06-2007 in R.C.C.No.13 of 2001 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, ordering eviction of the petitioners herein.

The parties will be referred to as they arrayed in R.C.C.No.13 of 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner-Sri Poleramma Hundi Seva Sangham, represented by its President M. Narasinga Rao, filed the petition under Section 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the respondents from the portion of the petition schedule property, for costs and such other reliefs, with the following averments:

The premises consisting of small shop rooms constructed in 1968 bearing D.No.32-1-66 belong to Poleramma Deity. Earlier the property was being managed by Sri Seetha Rama Bala Bhakta Samajam (hereinafter referred to as ‘Samajam’) and presently it is being managed by a registered society known as Sri Poleramma Hundi Seva Sangham. The said property is assessed to property tax by Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in the name of the said Samajam. The said Samajam obtained electricity connection in its name. The said Samajam was locally called as Poleramma Grama Committee and Poleramma Hundi Grama Committee, represented by it’s the then President/Secretary/Member and they leased out the said shop rooms to various tenants on monthly rents and the respondents are such tenants to one of the shop rooms of the said Samajam on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- during 1999.

The first respondent is no more and his Legal Representatives, R-2 to R-6, were brought on record during the pendency of RCC. It is oral tenancy. The further case of the petitioner is that the first respondent failed to pay rents from August, 2000 onwards till the date of filing of the petition. Then the petitioner issued a notice to the first respondent claiming arrears of rents and demanding to vacate the premises. The first respondent sent a reply with all false allegations. Thus the petitioner sought for eviction of the first respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. It is also contended that refusal of the first respondent to pay the rents amounts to willful default.

3. The first respondent filed counter denying material averments made by the petitioner. His main case is that the Samajam was brought into existence by himself alone in his personal capacity out of his own interest in the year 1968 and it was never a Samajam. His specific case is that he himself constructed the building bearing D.No.32-1-66 with sub-door numbers with his own financial resources, only for the purpose of eking out his livelihood by leasing out portions of the said building to outsiders and to run a club for the local youth.

It is also his case that the said Samajam had no members and it was not registered. It is also his case that he was collecting rents from other tenants and thus there was no lease agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent and there was no occasion and necessity for him to pay rents to the petitioner.

It is also his case that M. Narasinga Rao, who is representing the petitioner, and his associates, failed to furnish the accounts for the amount collected by them and only to harass him the eviction petition has been filed. It is also his case that Sri Poleramma Hundi Seva Sangham was brought into existence by the said Narasinga Rao and others on 07-11-2000 in a collusive manner for the purpose of initiating litigations and that there was no cause of action to file the petition.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-54 were marked. PW-1 is the president of the Sangham, PW-3 is the Tre