2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 28611

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Lam Krishna Rao – Appellant
Versus
Sri Yogananda Ashramam – Respondent
SA/377/2022

A Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession of a property leased out as a vacant site, even if the lessee has constructed a shed on the property, provided that the lessee does not have any evidence to support an oral lease for a longer period beyond the expiry of the written lease.

Headnote:

LEASE - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - PROPERTY LEASED OUT - VACANT LAND - STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED BY TENANT - CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 (ACT 1960).

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, an Ashram represented by the President of its Trust Board, filed a suit seeking possession of the plaint schedule property by ejecting the defendant; direct the defendant to remove the superstructure lying in the plaint schedule or in case if the defendant failed to remove the same, to permit the plaintiff to remove the structures; recovery of damages at Rs.10,005/- for use and occupation from 24.06.2010 to 24.11.2012 and for enhancement of damages etc.Defendant filed written statement and admitted that he took plaint schedule site on lease in the month of March, 1997 from Matadhipati Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana. It was contended that Ashramam has no income till 1997 and in order to generate income to Ashramam management offered the vacant site facing towards Markapur road. Defendant along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for use of commercial purpose. Defendant entered into lease agreement in the year 1997 itself with Matadhipati for 25 years, which was originally vacant site. In pursuance of the same, defendant raised shed shown in plaint schedule. After death of Matadhipati Ch.Satyanarayana, disputes arose between legal heirs of Satyanarayana and they were not settled for a period of one year. Defendant along with other tenants formed into association and deposited rents into nationalized bank. Later, the disputes were settled and Ch.Radha Krishna was elected as President of Trust Board. As per oral agreement in the year 1997, defendant raised shed and continued business for 25 years as lessees with enhancement of rent at 15% on completion of five years. At the time of registered lease deed dated 24.05.2000, plaintiff made believe the defendant that another registered lease deed will be executed for 10 years. In April, 2010 defendant requested to execute registered lease agreement for further period of 10 years as agreed in 1997. The President of the Trust Board demanded Rs.15,000/- from every tenant as goodwill and hence, the matter was placed before the elders and finally, it was settled on 09.05.2010 confirming the lease period upto May, 2020 on payment of Rs.10,000/- as goodwill. Defendant and other tenants demanded for passing of receipts. The President of Trust Board stated that they are facing litigation before the High Court of AP with endowments department regarding and he would pass receipts and executed registered lease deed in evidence of oral agreement dated 09.05.2010 after settlement of disputes with the department. Defendant is not defaulter in payment of rent at any time. When the President of Trust Board came to Vinukonda on 10th August, defendant demanded for passing of receipts for enhanced rents paid and for payment of Rs.10,000/- towards goodwill, however he postponed the same on the pretext of litigation. Finally, the President passed receipts on white papers with signatures. As per the advice of advocate, plaintiff agreed to obtained award at Mandal Legal Services Authority, Vinukonda and in fact, defendant prepared petition for filing of PLC. Plaintiff suppressed the fact and approached the Court. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has to approach the Rent Controller. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

Finding of the Court:

1. The property leased out is only vacant site, but not shed.2. It is the lessee after he came into possession, raised structure.3. Though it was mentioned in Ex.A-1 that shed was constructed by the landlord, in view of the evidence on record, it is the tenant who actually constructed the shed.4. In the absence of any other cogent evidence that what was leased out is shed but not vacant land, in the considered opinion of this Court, findings recorded by the Courts below that only vacant site was leased out and the Civil Court got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be disturbed.5. As per Ex.A-1, lease was expired on 23.05.2010 by afflux of time.6. Defendant having pleaded oral lease for 25 years, failed to produce any evidence in that regard.7. Once this Court came to conclusion basing on material available on record that property leased out is only vacant site, Civil suit alone is maintainable.

Issues: 1. Whether in view of pleadings of parties, the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit?2. Whether the appellant is entitled to continue as tenant in the schedule premises till 2020 as pleaded by him?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Where the property leased out is only vacant site, but not shed, and it is the lessee who actually constructed the shed, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession.2. A tenant cannot claim to continue as a tenant beyond the expiry of the lease period in the absence of any evidence to support an oral lease for a longer period.

Final Decision: The second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage without costs.