Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Pabolu Arkjaneyulu – Petitioner
versus
Nanik Sai Nani – Respondent
Second Appeal No.273 of 2022
Decided on 16.2.2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Rule of res judicata does not strike at root of jurisdiction of Court trying subsequent suit – It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for same cause. (Para 21)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction – High Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless findings of Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to evidence on record – If findings are based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider relevant evidence High Court under Section 100 of CPC can interfere – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of Court below where Courts below have exercised discretion judicially. (Para 48)
Result: Second Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2022 in A.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2016 in O.S.No.304 of 2013 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties to this judgment are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.304 of 2013 seeking ejectment of the defendant from the plaint B schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff; for recovery of Rs.2,32,500/- towards arrears and future damages at Rs.30,000/- per month.
4. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that the plaintiff for his business purpose purchased the building admeasuring 67.55 square yards consisting of four shops in ground floor and two shops in first floor at Gajuwaka under a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2011 from Sarakam Trinadha Swamy and others; that by the date of purchase of property, defendant was in occupation of one of the shops in the plaint A schedule property and the shop in the occupation of defendant was shown as plaint B schedule property; that plaintiff was running sweets shop in a rented shop; that the landlord of plaintiff demanded him to vacate the said shop; that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule property; in fact, even before purchasing the B schedule property, plaintiff in the presence of elders and mediators informed his intention to purchase the same to defendant; that defendant assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the premises and also agreed to pay monthly rent at Rs.7,500/-, however, he failed to vacate the premises; that plaintiff got issued legal notice on 27.04.2013 to defendant demanding to vacate the schedule property; that defendant issued reply with false averments; that the plaintiff got issued rejoinder notice on 13.07.2013; that the schedule premises is situated in a highly potential and commercial locality and would fetch more than Rs.30,000/- per month; that the plaintiff also requires the premises for bonafide requirement and thus, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.
5. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that the plaintiff is a total stranger to him and plaintiff never approached him before the alleged sale deed of B schedule property from Sarakam Trinadha Swamy and others; that there is no landlord and tenant relationship and the tenancy was also not attorned; that defendant took the property on lease from Sarakam Trinadha Swamy in the year 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- for the first five years and doing readymade garments business in the name and style of ‘Kala Priya Fashions’; that he paid advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to his landlord and invested huge capital and developed the business; that in the year 2004 landlord enhanced the rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- for the next five years; that both defendant and S.Trinadha Swamy mutually agreed for enhancement of rent at Rs.1,000/- for every five years; that in the year 2004 during road widening, the Municipal authorities demolished front portion of the shop and hence, the shop measurements were reduced to 11’ x 28’; that he filed suit O.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed on 08.03.2010; that subsequent to that suit, landlord filed suit O.S.No.322 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka seeking eviction of defendant from the schedule premises and the said suit was dismissed on merits on 30.12.2010; that aggrieved by the same, landlord filed appeal A.S.No.7 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 28.01.2013; that in the said judgment, it was observed that the plaintiff therein failed to prove the rent for demised premises is Rs.7,500/- per month; that after filing of suit O.S.No.97 of 2008 the landlord refused to
Res Judicata – Rule of res judicata does not strike at root of jurisdiction of Court trying subsequent suit – It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on public policy.
The amended Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act restricts civil court jurisdiction over eviction suits for tenants paying rent below specified thresholds.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted by the Rent Control Act provisions, making eviction suits based on oral agreements unenforceable and void.
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
Point of law : When order/judgment orders return of plain apart from findings on all issues including jurisdictional issue, effective remedy is to file a regular appeal under Section 96 of CPC treati....
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
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
