Eviction can be justified based on ownership even without establishing landlord-tenant relationships when evidence of rent payment is absent.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y. Lakna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on admission.

Perused the entire record.

2. This second appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2025 in A.S.No.167 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘first appellate Court’), wherein the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2016 in O.S.No.287 of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘trial Court’), whereby suit was dismissed, was reversed by partly allowing the appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the present second appeal.

4. The respondent herein filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent vide O.S.No.287 of 2012 and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, first appeal in A.S.No.167 of 2016 was preferred and the said first appeal was partly allowed reversing the judgment of the trial Court by granting relief of eviction and dismissing the plea for arrears of rent, but granting mense profits from the date of decree in the first appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in the first appeal, the present second appeal is preferred on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the appellate Court can set aside the judgment of trial Court just because different view is possible?

2. Whether the respondent could prove his ownership?

3. Whether the respondent could prove that agreement of sale did not exist between the appellant and the respondent?

4. Whether the relief of eviction and recovery of possession can be granted when the fundamental relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?

5. Whether the relief of eviction and recovery of possession can be granted in the absence of any evidence of payment of rents by the appellant/defendant?

6. Whether the relief of eviction can order to vacate the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale filed by the appellant/defendant?

5. The above substantial questions of law are factual and have no element of substantial question of law. The issue of ownership, existence of agreement of sale between the parties, relationship of landlord and tenant are issues of fact. The eviction was granted on the basis of ownership. Though, there was no evidence of payment of rents eviction can be granted to the rightful owner and therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in the said question. Further, the last substantial question is about granting of relief of eviction, when there was a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale which was dismissed and the first appeal was pending. The very fact of filing of suit for specific performance by the appellant proves acknowledgement of ownership of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Further, dismissal of the said suit specific performance shows failure on the part of the appellant to prove the agreement of sale or inability to pay sale consideration.

6. Subsequently, learned counsel for the appellant filed case summary in the present second appeal, wherein he raised the following additional substantial questions of law for consideration in the present second appeal:

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the findings of the Trial Court on a pure question of fact i.e., the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, without finding that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse, based on no evidence, or