Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Balijepalli Raja Sekhar, S/o. Late Apparao – Appellant
Versus
Gorle Venkata Prasada Rao, (Since Died) – Respondent
Second Appeal No: 505 of 2025
Decided on : 14-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri G.Venkat Sailendra
For the Respondent: Sri Srinivas Ambati
A tenant who continues occupation after lease expiry without payments is a tenant at sufferance and not holding over; an eviction suit serves as notice to quit.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 106 - Eviction suit - Tenant's rights and obligations upon expiry of lease - Eviction based on non-payment of rent and failure to deliver possession - Court emphasized the distinction between tenant at sufferance and tenant holding over. (Paras 4, 20, 28)
(B) Legal representatives in eviction suits - A legal representative may continue with an eviction suit if the original plaintiff passes away. (Para 28)
(C) Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 of CPC - High Court's role is to evaluate substantial questions of law, not to re-appreciate evidence. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
The original plaintiff leased property to the defendant, who defaulted on rent payments. The original plaintiff filed for eviction, which continued after his demise, with his son taking over.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff's claim for eviction was upheld; the defendant was directed to vacate and pay damages.
Issues: The legal validity of notice under Section 106, non-joinder of necessary parties, and tenant's liability for damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court confirmed lower courts' findings, noting that an eviction suit itself suffices as notice to quit; the defendant was found to be a tenant at sufferance.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of landlord-tenant relationship and obligations. (Para 4 , 5 , 13) |
| 2. implications of eviction notices under the transfer of property act. (Para 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 3. distinction between tenants holding over and tenants at sufferance. (Para 19 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. allowed legal actions for one co-owner against a tenant. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing appeal based on substantial questions of law. (Para 30 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
1. The defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2022 in O.S.No.100 of 2014 on the file of Additional Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 in A.S.No.13 of 2023 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.
-
2. For brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their status in the suit.
3. The deceased 1st plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.100 of 2014 against the defendant seeking eviction. Pending the suit, the sole plaintiff died, and his son, being the legal representative, came on record as 2nd defendant.
4. Facts, in brief, as set out in the plaint, are that the 1st plaintiff leased out the suit schedule property to the defendant under a lease deed dated 26.04.2001 for 11 months, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding month. The defendant is required to operate a timber business by raising temporary sheds, and upon expiry of the lease period, the defendant must deliver vacant possession to the 1st plaintiff. After expiry of initial lease, at the request of the defendant, the 1st plaintiff agreed to continue the defendant as tenant with an agreed rent of Rs.4,000/- per month from April 2002. Thereafter, the defendant committed default in payment of monthly rents. The deceased 1st plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, Srikakulam, for eviction of the defendant; however, the said RCC was dismissed on technical grounds. Thereafter, the defendant stopped paying rent to the 1st plaintiff, and the 1st plaintiff shifted to Visakhapatnam to undergo treatment. The defendant filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 seeking a permanent injunction, and the said suit was dismissed. The defendant is a trespasser. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of damages at Rs.5,000/- per month from January 2011 onwards.
5. a) The defendant filed a written statement and admitted the landlord and tenant relationship. The defendant contended that he paid Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff as a security deposit and raised a permanent shed with a zinc sheet roof for running a timber depot. The defendant never committed any default; however, the 1st plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.9 of 2003 for eviction. Pending the said RCC, the defendant paid rents to the 1st plaintiff, and even after the dismissal of RCC, the defendant paid rents through money order, and the same was received by the 1st plaintiff till December 2005. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff refused to receive the rents from January 2006 to May 2007.
b) The defendant got issued a legal notice to the 1st plaintiff on 16.07.2007 to furnish his bank account details. Even after receipt of legal notice, the 1st plaintiff did not choose to give any reply. The defendant filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking a perpetual injunction.
c) An additional written statement was filed. It was contended that the 2nd plaintiff failed to add the mother and sister, and they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The 2nd plaintiff has to prove the registered Will dated 09.02.2009, said to have been executed by the 1st plaintiff.
6. During the trial, the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined D.W.2. Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked.
7. The Trial Court by judgment date
