1
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT:
HYDERABAD.
Dated this Tuesday the 19 th day of January, 2021
PRESENT: Smt. K.Sujana,
Chief Judge.
RC.A.No. 7 of 2020
Between
1. M. Laxman S/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business,
2. M. Laxmi D/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, W/o. Nagaiah, Age: 34 years, Housewife,
3. M. Manjula D/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, W/o. M. Ramesh, Age: 35 years, Housewife,
4. P. Laxmi D/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, W/o. P. Srinivas, Age: 35 years, Housewife,
5. M. Shivaiah S/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, Age: 28 years, Business
6. M. Navaneetha D/o. Late Sri Yellaiah, Age: 24 years, Business,
7. Smt. Suresh Kumari Vishwakarma (died per Lrs No.8 to 13)
8. Subhash Chander Vishwa Karma S/o. Brij Mohan Lal, Age: 67years, Business
9. Smt. Prathibha D/o. Subhash Chander Vishwakarma, Age: 33 years, Occ: Household,
10. Smt. Shobha D/o.Subhash Chander Vishwakarma, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household,
11. Smt. Jyothi D/o. Subhash Chander Vishwakarma, Age: 29 years, Occ: Household,
12. Kushal Chand Vishwakarma S/o. Subhash Chander Vishwakarma, Age: 27 years, Occ: Business,
13. Sandeep Kumar Vishwarkarma S/o. Subhash Chander Vishwakarma, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student,
All are R/o.H.No.191914/2, Murli Nagar,
Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. .. Appellants
(Respondents in R.C)
And
Smt. Veena Rani W/o. Jai hind, D/o. Late N. Rangaiah, Age: about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.214871/A,
Gulab Singh Bowli, Petla Bruj, Hyderabad. .. Respondent
(Petitioner in R.C.) 2
Appeal against the orders, dated 3012020 passed in R.C.No. 185 of 2015 on
the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad.
Between
Smt. Veena Rani .. Petitioner
And
1. M. Laxman
2. M. Laxmi
3. M. Manjula
4. P. Laxmi
5. M. Shivaiah
6. M. Navaneetha
7. Smt. Suresh Kumari Vishwakarma (died per Lrs No.8 to 13)
8. Subhash Chander Vishwa Karma
9. Smt. Prathibha
10. Smt. Shobha
11. Smt. Jyothi
12. Kushal Chand Vishwakarma
13. Sandeep Kumar Vishwarkarma .. Respondents
The present appeal having listed on 31122020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Prashanth, Advocate for the appellants and Sri R.K.Vora, Advocate for respondent and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred under Section 20(1) of the
Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act by the appellants against the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.185 of 2015, dt. 30.1.2020 wherein the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by evicting the appellants.
3
2.The facts of the case are that the petitioner has let out
H.No.191914/2, Murli Ngar, Bhahadupura, Hyderabad totally admeasuring 225 square yards to the ancestors i.e., father and mother of the respondents No.1 to 6 and they were occupying the demised premises as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/ and the petitioner is a landlord and petitioner has delivered vacant physical possession to the tenants for the purpose of initially washing clothes as they are
Washerman and thereafter they were using the same for washing clothes as well as for their residence and after the death of their parents, their children became tenants and they have sublet part of the demised premises to the respondent No.7 on a monthly rent of
Rs.2000/ and in that way after the death of the parents, the respondents No.1 to 6 became irregular in payment of monthly rents and finally committed willful default in payment of rents from the date of death of their mother i.e., Malkamma from 1.5.2011 to July 2015 for 51 months @ Rs.2000/ per month amounting to Rs.1,20,000/.
Inspite of repeated demands and request made by the husband of the petitioner, the respondents failed to pay the rents and committed willful default and they are liable to be evicted from the demised premises.
Initially the respondents were seeking time to pay the arrears of rents and to execute fresh rental deed on fresh terms in favour of the petitioner and now they are malafidely denying the title of the petitioner by stating that the demised premises belong to their parents which is totally false and further pleaded that the respondents have due of electricity charges and they are not paying the same inspite of repeated 4 demands, as such they have committed willful default and the respondents are not peacefully living in the demised premises and kept the same in a very bad condition, which is causing acts of waste, as such they are liable to be evicted on this ground also.
3.The petitioner further pleaded that the respondents are doing illegal activities and using vulgar language to the petitioner and it is causing nuisance and inconvenience to other residents and the respondents have not paid the rents for the default period till this date inspite of repeated demands, as such the respondents have committed willful default.
4.The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments by stating that the petitioner has not sublet the petition schedule property to the father and mother of the respondents No.1 to 6 and they are not occupying the demised premises on rent on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/ and the petitioner is not the landlord and she has not delivered vacant physical possession to them for the purpose of washing clothes etc. The respondents also denied the willful default, act of waster and nuisance as alleged by the petitioner and further pleaded that it is totally false that the respondents were seeking time to pay the rents and to execute fresh rental deed on fresh terms in favour of the petitioner and that now the respondents malafidely denying the title of the petitioners and further pleaded that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenants in the present case and these 5 respondents are lawful owners and possessors of the petition schedule property, as such this court has no jurisdiction to try this case.
5.The respondents pleaded that the petitioner was the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property house bearing NO.191 914/1, situated at Gollakidiki, Hyderabad by virtue of registered gift settlement deed executed by one Mr. N. Rama Swamy vide document bearing No.1137/1986 dt.25.3.1986 and after becoming the owner of the petition schedule property, the petitioner has entered into an agreement of final settlement with the mother of the respondents No.1 to 6 in the year 1988 itself and in that said agreement of final settlement, it was stated that the petitioner had already executed an agreement of final settlement deed on 17.12.1986 on receiving earnest money out of total cost of Rs.67,500/ out of which she has received
Rs.52,000/ and delivered vacant possession of the petition schedule property on the date of agreement of final settlement deed and it was further mentioned in the final agreement of settlement deed that the petitioner had to further receive an amount of Rs.7000/ and it was further agreed in the agreement of final settlement deed that balance of
Rs.8000/ shall be paid at the time of registration i.e., within 15 days from the agreement of final settlement deed dt.29.3.1988. Further submitted that in the agreement of final settlement deed, the petitioner undertook not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and further also mentioned that the mother of respondents No.1 to 6 can enjoy the petition schedule 6 property in the capacity of owner from the date of agreement of final settlement deed i.e., 29.3.1988.
6.The respondents further submitted that having executed agreement of final settlement deed and having received entire sale consideration and further having delivered vacant peaceful possession to the respondents, the petitioner along with her henchmen and antisocial elements trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, hence, late Malkamma mother of the respondents No.1 to 6 filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner vide O.S.No.2167/1988 on the file of the then VI Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and during the pendency of the
suit, due to intervention of the mediators and elders, the matter was compromised between the mother of respondents No.1 to 6 with the petitioner and accordingly a joint compromise memo was filed under
Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in O.S.No.2167/1988 and the same was recorded by the court on 21.6.1988 and judgment was passed accordingly.
7.The respondents also submitted that thereafter the mother of the respondents No.1 to 6 i.e., Smt. Malkamma executed a registered gift deed in favour of her husband and father of the respondents No.1 to 6 died on 10.1.1999 and their mother died on 1.5.2011 leaving behind the respondents No.1 to 6 to succeed the property left behind them, as such the respondents No.1 to 6 have sold part of the house bearing 7
No.191914/2 admeasuring 100 square yards to the respondent No.7 by way of registered sale deed vide document bearing No.443/2014 on 24.2.2014 and delivered vacant peaceful possession to the respondent
No.7. Subsequently the respondent No.7 also died on 2.2.2015 leaving behind the respondents No.8 to 13 as legal heirs. After executing the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 and the respondents No.1 to 6 have partitioned remaining portion of 125 square yards in premises No.191914/2 by way of registered partition deed vide document bearing No.1328/2014 on 24.5.2015. Therefore, respondents prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8.In the trial Court, the respondents No.2, 3, 4, 6, 9 to 11 are set exparte. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and
Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked and also examined P.W.2 to P.W.4. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.13 are marked and also examined R.W.2.
9.Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether there is a jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondents as landlord and tenants in respect of petition schedule premises?
(2) Whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondents in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide or malafide?
(3) Whether the respondents have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents from 1.5.2011 to July 2015 for 51 months @ Rs.2000/ per month amounting to Rs.1,20,000/?
8 (4) Whether the respondents have committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises?
(5) Whether the respondents have committed act of nuisance in respect of petition schedule premises?
(6) Whether the respondents No.1 to 6 have sub let the petition schedule premises to respondent No.7?
(7) To what relief?
10.Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the eviction petition on the ground of default, denial of title and subletting. Against the same, this appeal is filed and the grounds of the appeal are that the learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned order which is against the pleadings, evidence on record and law and the learned Rent Controller has failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and documents of the appellants under Exs.R.1 to R.13, thereby has miscarried the justice and also the trial Court held that the burden is on the petitioner to prove jural relationship of landlord and tenant has erroneously held that the petitioner has proved the same without there being any documents to substantiate the proof of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, thereby has carried miscarriage of justice. Both P.W.1 and 2 deposed that they do not have any documents to show that the respondents are their tenants. The learned
Rent Controller wrongly concluded that there is a jural relationship and totally misread the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and erroneously came to a conclusion. The trial Court ought to have consider that non proving of
Ex.P.1 does not ipso facto prove the jural relationship of landlord and 9 tenant and the trial Court failed to consider the fact that till the tenancy is proved, the nature of possession of party would be permissive and not that of tenancy, if that be so, the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the learned Rent
Controller ought to have seen that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 has specifically stated that, they do not know how many rooms are present in the petition schedule property and that how many rooms have been let out, which proves that the mother of respondent was not the tenant.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of trial Court by allowing the appeal.
11.Heard both sides. The counsel for appellant filed detailed written arguments and they will be discussed during the course of discussion on relevant points.
12.The counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the order of Rent Controller as the appellants failed to prove that they purchased the property under agreement of sale and they were not filed any suit for specific performance and even according to the Ex.R.2, the appellants have to go for the registration of the property within 15 days from the date of decree but they were not registered the property. The agreement of final settlement is not at all helpful to the appellants to prove that they purchased the property and they malafidely denied the title and they have not paid the rents from 2011.
10
Further also argued the appellant not filed the document of the year 1986 which falsifies their contention. As such, they were rightly evicted by the Rent Controller and there is no illegality in the order and there are no merits in the appeal as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Now the points for determination are:
(1) Whether there is a jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenants?
(2) Whether the denial of title by the appellants is bonafide?
(3) Whether the appellants have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents for 51 months from 1.5.2011 to July 2015?
(4) Whether the appellants No.1 to 6 have subletted the petition schedule premises to appellant No.7?
(5) Whether the appellants have committed act of waste and nuisance?
(6) To what relief?
PointNo.1:
13.The petitioner (respondent in this appeal) in the trial
Court examined P.W.1 to 4 and filed Exs.P.1 and P.2 to prove the jural relationship between the parties and also default in payment of rents.
The respondent/appellant in the counter denied the jural relationship between the parties. Whenever the jural relationship between the parties is denied, the burden is on the landlord to prove that there is a 11 jural relationship. To prove the jural relationship, the evidence adduced by the petitioner is that the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the petition averments stating that she let out the H.No.191914/2, Murali Nagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, admeasuring 225 sq.yards to the ancestors of the respondents No.1 to 6 and they were in occupation and they are paying Rs.2,000/ per month as rent and they are using the premises for washing clothes as well as residence and they are became irregular in payment of rents from 1.5.2011 to July 2015. Therefore, the respondents are defaulters in payment of rents as such, they are liable to be evicted and he also examined P.W.2husband of the petitioner filed chief affidavit with same averments and P.W.3 and P.W.4 are examined as the neighbors to prove the jural relationship.
14.Going through the evidence of P.W.1, no where she stated that when the premises is let out to the mother of respondent No.1 to 6 and she filed Exs.P.1 and P.2 to prove the ownership of the property.
Ex.P.1 is the registered gift settlement deed vide registered document
No.1137/1986 and Ex.P.2 is rough sketch plan. The respondent also not denied the documents Exs.P.1 and P.2 and the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner became the owner of the property vide
Ex.P.1 whereas, he purchased the property from the petitioner on agreement of final settlement vide Ex.R.1 as such he is not a tenant of the property and there is no jural relationship. When the respondent/tenant denied the jural relationship, the burden is on the 12 petitioner to prove the same. To prove the landlord and tenant relationship, no document is filed by the petitioner. There is no rental deed and the petitioners’ version is that the tenancy is oral and further to prove that the respondent paid the rents to the petitioner, no rental receipt is filed. When there is no documentary evidence to prove the jural relationship the petitioner has to prove the same by adducing sufficient oral evidence. For that the petitioner examined herself as
P.W.1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the petition averments. In the crossexamination she admitted that from 1986 she was not residing in the petition schedule premises. Further she stated that she leased out the petition schedule premises to one Malkamma in the year 1986 and tenancy was oral and she paid rent of Rs.500/ per month on the date of inception of tenancy. Whereas the same is not pleaded in the petition. Further stated that she do not know how many rooms in the petition schedule property were leased out to Malkamma which shows that she do not have idea about the petition schedule property. Further also stated that she never visited the petition schedule property from 1986 which shows that she has no personal knowledge about the petition schedule property. P.W.2 evidence also no way supports to prove the jural relationship. Apart from the P.W.1 and P.W.2, the petitioner examined P.W.3Mohd. Mushraf Hussain and he filed his chief affidavit stating that the petitioner has let out H.No.191914/2,
Muralinagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad to Malkamma and they are occupying the demised premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of
Rs.2,000/ and the petitioner is the landlord and he saw several times 13 that Malkamma used to pay the monthly rents to the petitioner and he was present several times whenever the rents were received by the petitioner. In the crossexamination, he admitted that PW.2 requested him to give evidence before the Court and P.W.2 has taken him to the counsel and he drafted his chief affidavit and he do not know
Malkamma and again says that Malkamma is the tenant of petitioner and he saw the petitioner in the petition schedule property 5 to 6 years back and it was locked and only once he has visited the petition schedule property and the petition schedule property is having only ground floor and he do not know how many rooms it consists. P.W.3 do not know since how many years the respondent is tenant of the petitioner and he do not know the quantum of rent and he do not know when the Malkamma paid rent last time to the petitioner and he also admitted that as the petitioner informed that the respondent is tenant as such, he deposing before the Court but he has not seen any lease deed and he cannot identify Malkamma. The admissions in the cross examination of P.W.3 shows that P.W.3 has no knowledge about the jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent and he also not having knowledge about the Malkamma and he also admitted that he do not know the facts of the case and at the request of the petitioner’s son he gave evidence to support the case. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is no way useful to the petitioner to prove the jural relationship.
14
15. The petitioner also examined P.W.4S.Hari Babu and filed his chief affidavit stating that the petitioner has let out H.No.191 914/2, Murali Nagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad to Malkamma and they are occupying the demised premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of
Rs.2,000/ and he saw several times that Malkamma paid the monthly rents to the petitioner and he was present several times whenever rents were received by the petitioner. In the crossexamination, P.W.4 admitted that he do not know who prepared his chief affidavit and he signed his chief affidavit in the Court. He do not know the contents of his chief affidavit and the contents of his chief affidavit are not explained to him and he do not know how many rooms are there in the petition schedule property and he never saw Malkamma in the petition schedule property. The counsel for the respondent confronted photograph asking him to identify the Malkamma but he failed to identify the said Malkamma. P.W.4 also deposed that he do now know whether the husband of Malkamma purchased the petition schedule property from the petitioner. In the crossexamination P.W.4 deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief affidavit and he deposed that in the year 1986 the petitioner leased out the petition schedule property at the rate of 5 to 6 hundred per month which is the new version and the said fact is stated by P.W.1 and not pleaded in the petition and P.W.4 also deposed that at the request of P.W.2 he gave evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 is also no way helpful to the petitioner to prove the jural relationship.
15
16.Further the petitioner crossexamined R.W.1 and R.W.2 at length. No where R.W.1 or R.W.2 admitted the jural relationship.
Further the counsel for the respondent (petitioner in R.C.) tried to elicit that they are resided in Shakkarkota. R.W.1 admitted that they shifted to petition schedule property in the year 2009 when the house in
Shakkarkota effected in road widening. This admission is not helpful to the petitioner as he stated that his grand father used to wash clothes at
Bahadurpura petition schedule property. Further the case of the petitioner though it is not pleaded in crossexamination, suggestion given to R.W.1 stating that in the month of November 1986 tenancy started and monthly rent was Rs.500/ which suggestion was denied.
Whereas that suggestion proves that respondents are in possession of petition schedule property since 1986. Further the entire cross examination mainly focused to disprove the documents Exs.R.1 and
R.2. This is not a title suit filed by the petitioner to examine the title of respondent. For eviction the landlord has to primafacie prove the jural relationship. The tenant may assert ownership in respect of the petition schedule properlty and even failure to establish his case about the ownership may not automatically result in eviction unless it is established that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
17.In this context, both parties filed Judgments of Honourable
High Court. The appellants relied on CRP.4372/1993 (K.P.Janakiram 16
Vs. K.Suguna Bai) LAWS (APH) 1995 3 69, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court in Para No.17 observed that:
“In the instant case, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to show that at any point of time either under the original owner Smt.P.Annapurnamma or under the present landlord, any rent was paid to the owners of the demised premises either by the present petitionertenant or by his father. No rent receipts or lease deed are produced to show that the petitioner was the tenant as stated above; nor there is any clinching material to this effect, right from the year 1956, for nearly 39 years. Even otherwise, P.W.1 simply stated that the petitionertenant’s father was tenant under Smt. Annapurnamma and after the purchase, the petitioner is the tenant under the respondent landlord, which was denied by the petitionertenant. It is a case of oath against oath and no positive decision can be given on this oral testimony.
In Para No.18, it is observed that:
The petitionertenant has produced Ex.R.2, though it is not an agreement of sale butn a receipt executed by the son or Smt. P.Annapurnamma in the year 1956. It is an admitted case that right from the year 1956, earlier the tenant’s father was in possession and after his death, the petitionertenant was in possession. It cannot be believed that for nearly 39 years, the petitionertenant and his father were the tenants in the premises in question without paying any rent. Therefore, prima facie, it is not established that the petitioner has been the tenant over the demised premises, and as such eh cannot be said to be a tenant denying the title of the landlord in terms of the proviso to Sec.10(1) of the Rent Control Act.”
18.In the present case also the respondentpetitioner no where proved the jural relationship between the parties by filing any piece of paper and not filed any rent receipts and even the respondentpetitioner not pleaded in the petition that in which year they gave the premises to the appellants for rent and what rate of rent they are entered into possession of the property and no where in the pleadings it is clarified.
17
19.The appellantstenants also relied on the Judgment of 2010(1) ALD 366(Avulapalle Mallikarjuna and others Vs.
N.T.Chengalarayappa) wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Para No.10 observed that:
“Every person in possession of premises, even without title; cannot become a tenant automatically, of any one, including that of the rightful owner. While possession can come into existence with unilateral acts of parties, a tenancy is the one, which would emerge only with the consent of parties. The consent can be expressed orally, or in writing. Until the tenancy, that too, of a particular nature was not established by the petitioners, there was no basis for the trial Court to order eviction of the respondent. The fact, that the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance was dismissed, may enable the respondent to seek recovery of possession, by instituting a separate suit. There did not exist any basis for the petitioners to file the RCC. The trial Court took note of the same and reversed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the lower Appellate Court.”
20.The respondentpetitioner relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble
High Court AIR 1986 Orissa 74(Sujan Chran Lenka and others Vs. Smt.
Pramila Mumari Mohanty and others) in Para No.7 it is observed that:
“In view of the contentions raised, the first point of consideration is whether on the basis of the deed of contract for sale, the learned Courts below were justified in holding that opposite Party No.1 has a prima facie case, specially when, the petitioners have saledeeds in their favour in respect of the same land executed by the real owner. In the case of Ram Baran Prasad (supra) it was held that in the case of an agreement for sale entered into prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, it was the accepted doctrine in India that the agreement created an interest in the land itself in favour of the purchaser. But there has been a change in the 18 legal position since the passing of the Transfer of Property Act.S.54 of the said Act states that a contract for sale of immovable property does not of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. Reading S.14 along with S.54 of the said Act, it is manifest that a mere contract for sale of immovable property does not create any interest in the immovable property.”
21.Whereas, in the present case, appellants never admitted the jural relationship. This is a petition for eviction of the appellants.
Therefore, the respondentpetitioner has to primafacie prove the jural relationship between the parties, need not to examine the documents of appellants, as it is not a title suit. Therefore, the above Judgment is not helpful to the respondentpetitioner.
22.The respondentpetitioner also relied on the Judgment of
Hon’ble High Court in 2006(4) ALD 275(M.A.Aziz Vs. Dr. Mohd.Abdul
Quddus) in Para No.15 it is observed that:
“The respondents denied the title of the landlord, or claim permanent tenancy, then the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of landlord’s title by the tenants is bonafide, then he shall dismiss the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he is not satisfied about the bonafides of the denial of title raised by the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in possession of the building. When a particular procedure is laid down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title provisions of Civil P.C. i.e. Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable. The provisions of Section 10(6) of the Rent Control Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in Section 10(6) ‘in case of denial of landlord’s title by the tenants.”
In Para No.16 it is observed that:
19 “The petitioners did not claim that they are the owners of the said building or that they had acquired the rights of permanent tenancy in it. Admittedly they have been paying rents to the respondents after they had purchased the building. Under the Transfer of Property Act, in such a case, the tenants are estopped from denying the title of the landlord. How far such a denial is bona fide in this case will have to be considered by the Rent Controller.”
Whereas, in the present case, the respondentpetitioner no where proved that he received the rents and and the tenants paying the rents and tenant is also not admitted the jural relationship. Therefore, the above Judgment is not applicable to this case.
23.The respondentpetitioner also relied on the Judgment of
Hon’ble High Court in 2018(6) ALD 696(Shaik Sadiq Ali Vs. Mohd.
Dastagir (died) per L.Rs and others) wherein it is observed that:
“In the light of the clear and categorical language of Section 116 of the Evidence Act and the settled case law on the subject, it is clear that the present petitioner has no right to deny his landlord’s title to the property. The admissions of the present tenant/respondent in more than one legal proceeding makes it very clear that he has accepted the deceased first respondent as his landlord. Both by virtue of the law and by virtue of the express admissions.”
Whereas, in the present case the appellants never accepted the jural relationship therefore, the above Judgment is not applicable to this case.
24.The respondentpetitioner also relied on the Judgment of
Hon’ble High Court in LAWS (APH) 2005 7 22(Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mohd.
20
Azam) with regarding to the denial of title in Para No.12, it is observed that:
“While deciding the question as to whether the denial of title of the landlord by a tenant is bona fide or not, the Rent Controller is required to maintain a perfect balance, between two extremities. On the one hand he cannot ignore the evidence before him, while deciding about bona fides of denial of title, by the tenant. On the other, he cannot assume the role of a Civil Court to declare the title of the landlord. The Rent Controller is required to examine the nature of denial, in the context of relevant facts. If the landlord is able to place necessary material before him, as to his title, the Rent Controller has to examine the acceptability of the same visa vis, the nature of the material that is placed by the tenant in this limited context. The situation becomes significant when the tenant does not claim title in himself.”
Whereas, in the present case it is not the question of title of the landlord and it is the question with regard to jural relationship. The respondentpetitioner no where proved that he received the rents and the tenants paying the rents and tenant is also not admitted the jural relationship. Therefore, the above Judgment is not applicable to this case.
25.The respondentpetitioner relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble
High Court in AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 186 (Manta Subbaramayya and others Vs. Batchu Narasimha Swamy and another) in Para No.15 it is observed that:
“Inherent powers cannot be invoked in a case where a particular procedure has been laid down to meet a particular contingency. Under Sec.10(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, if the tenants deny the title of the landlord, or claim permanent tenancy, then the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of 21 landlord’s title by the tenants is bona fide, then he shall dismiss the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he is not satisfied about the bona fides of the denial of title raised by the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in possession of the building. When a particular procedure is laid down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title provisions of Civil P.C. i.e. Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable. The provisions of Section 10(6) of the Rent Control Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in Section 10(6) in case of denial of landlord’s title by the tenants.”
The facts of the above Judgment are different from the facts of this case.
Hence, the Judgment cited by the respondentpetitioner is not applicable to this case.
26. The respondentpetitioner also relied on the Judgment in 1993(3) ALT 466 (Mumtaz Ali Khan and another Vs. Rupender Pershad and another). The facts of this case are not applicable to the present facts of this case.
27.The respondentpetitioner relied on the Judgment in 2006(5)
ALD 345(Shankaramma and others Vs. Mohamed Abdul Hameed and another) in Para No.2 and 3 it is observed that:
“The Rent Controller, by order dated 1681996, dismissed the R.C., on the ground that there is no jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenants, in view of the title set up by the tenants, and therefore, unless the relationship between the landlord and tenants is decided by a competent civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition and the petitioner was given liberty to initiate proceedings before a competent Court of law. Against the same, the landlord filed R.A.No.266 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
22
The Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the R.A., holding that the husband of the 1 st tenant, by name late Narasimha, was only an agreement holder in respect of the premises in question, and even according to the agreement, out of the sale consideration of Rs.2,000/, only Rs.1,500/ has been paid and therefore, the tenants have not acquired any title to the said property. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also held that there was oral attornment in favour of the purchaser, who filed the eviction petition, and as the eviction petitioner purchased the said property by registered sale deed under Ex.P.1, denial of his title is not bona fide.”
In Para No.5 it is observed that:
“The Division Bench, by order, dated 28102005, answered the said reference. It was held that in view of the definition mentioned under Section 2(vi) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”), the transferee of the landlord is entitled to collect the rent as of right and he is a landlord under the inclusive definition. Since the attornment is not necessary under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short “TP Act”), the tenant cannot dispute the right of the Transferee to maintain a suit for eviction or to claim rent. A transferee of the landlord’s rights steps into the shoes of the transferorlandlord, with all the rights and liabilities in respect of the subsisting tenancy. This Section does not insist that the transfer of the landlord’s rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant being unnecessary to confer validity on the transfer of the landlord’s rights, the tenant cannot dispute the right of the transfereelandlord to maintain an application for eviction or to claim rent. Section 109 of the T.P. Act makes it clear that the landlord can transfer his property in favour of a third party during the subsistence of the lease. The consent of tenant is not necessary to transfer the property in favour of a third party.”
28.Whereas, in the present case, it is not the question of attornment of tenancy primafacie the respondentpetitioner failed to prove the jural relationship therefore, we cannot go into the title either of the landlord or the tenant. Therefore, the above Judgment is not helpful to the respondentpetitioner. The evidence adduced by the respondent 23 petitioner either oral or documentary is no way helpful to the petitioner to prove the jural relationship between the parties. The denial of jural relationship is different from the denial of title. When the appellants tenants denied the jural relationship, it is the burden of the respondent petitioner to prove the jural relationship by adducing cogent evidence, that the respondentpetitioner failed to prove the same by filing the documentary evidence or by the sufficient oral evidence, there is no piece of paper to prove that the appellant is the tenant and he paid the rents to the respondentpetitioner. Therefore, the respondentpetitioner failed to prove the jural relationship.
Point No.2:
29.Further, the contention of the respondentpetitioner is that the appellant malafidely denying the title of the respondentpetitioner.
When the respondentpetitioner failed to prove the jural relationship itself, the question of denial of title by the appellant does not occurs.
Further the case of the appellant is he is in the possession of the property as an owner by purchasing the same by way of agreement of final settlement and he also filed the documents under Exs.R.1 and R.2 to prove that he has entered into agreement of sale with the respondent petitioner and he also filed a suit in the year 1988 before VI Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed by way of
compromise memo filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The same is denied by the respondentpetitioner stating that it is the suit of 24 perpetual injunction and the signatures of the said document not belongs to the respondentpetitioner and whatever the claim of the appellant is illegal. The jurisdiction of Rent Controller is limited to the extent of landlord and tenant relationship and it is not competent Civil
Court to discuss about the title and primafacie when there is no evidence on behalf of the respondentpetitioner to prove that the jural relationship between the parties, the court cannot go into the title and more specifically in this case, the tenant admitted the title of the landlord and he was not denied the title of the landlord and his version is that he purchased the same from the said landlord. Therefore, this
Court cannot hold that the tenant denied the title of the landlord and order eviction on a nonexistent ground. It is only when a tenant denies the title of the landlord and the said denial is not bona fide that he becomes liable to be evicted under clause (vi) of subsection (2) of
Section 10 of the Act but not when he denies the relationship of landlord and tenant. Having regard to the expansive definition of the expression ‘landlord’ in Section 2(vi) of the Act, which includes persons other than the owner of the premises, denial of relationship of landlord and tenant does not amount to denial of title of the landlord. But mere denial of title of the landlord is not enough, it must also be shown that such denial is not bonafide. In the present case, the appellant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant therefore, it cannot be said that it is the denial of title of the landlord, when the respondentpetitioner himself failed to prove the jural relationship. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant denied the title of the respondentpetitioner and it is a 25 malafide denial. The trial Court erroneously observed that the denial of jural relationship itself is a denial of title.
Point No.3:
30.Further the claim of the respondentpetitioner is that the appellant has committed wilful default from 1.5.2011 to July 2015 for 51 months at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per month amounting to
Rs.1,20,000/. The respondentpetitioner failed to prove that upto 1.5.2011 he received the rents from the appellant and also the jural relationship. When there is no document to prove that till 1.5.2011 he received the rents he cannot insist the tenant to prove that from 1.5.2011 to July 2015 he paid the rents. Admittedly, whenever the default ground pleaded by the respondentpetitioner, the burden lies on the appellants to prove that there is no wilful default in payment of rents. Whereas, in the present case, to prove the wilful default the respondentpetitioner has to prove that the appellant is his tenant and upto 1.5.2011 he paid the rents to him. When primafacie the respondentpetitioner fails to prove the same, he cannot insist the appellant to prove that he is not a wilful defaulter. Therefore, on this ground also, there is no evidence on behalf of the respondentpetitioner as such, the eviction on this ground is also not correct.
Point No.4:
31.The other ground pleaded by the petitioner is that respondents No.1 to 6 sublet the premises to respondent No.7 and after 26 the death of respondent No.7, legal heirs Respondents No.8 to 13 are brought on record. The contention of the respondents in R.C. is that they sold 100 sq.yards to the respondent No.7 out of the petition schedule property through registered sale deed. The petitioner has to prove that respondents sublet the premises to third party.
32.To prove the same there is no evidence adduced by the respondentpetitioner. Further the petitioner primafacie failed to prove the jural relationship itself. In the crossexamination of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 they pleaded ignorance about respondents No.7 to 13 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that they do not know to whom the petition schedule premises was sublet land their counsel know about the same. As such there is no evidence to prove the ground of subletting and the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion as the respondents pleaded that part of the petition schedule premises sold to respondent No.7 amounts to subletting.
Point No.5 and 6:
33.The other grounds pleaded by the respondentpetitioner are acts of waste and nuisance. When these grounds are pleaded, burden lies on the respondentpetitioner to prove the same, but there is no evidence on the record to prove the same as such eviction cannot be granted on these grounds.
27
34.In view of the discussion made on the points, the respondent petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship. When the appellants denied the jural relationship, burden lies on the respondentpetitioner to prove the same, whereas there is no evidence on record to prove the jural relationship. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondentpetitioner is not the owner of the property whereas his version is that he purchased the petition schedule premises and he entered into the possession through agreement of final settlement. The respondentpetitioner failed to prove that the appellants entered into the possession as a tenants as such the Order of the Rent Controller is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Point No.7:
35.In the result, RCA No.7 of 2020 is allowed by setting aside the impugned eviction orders, dated 3012020 in R.C.No.185 of 2015 passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad and consequently, R.C.No.185 of 2015 stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open Court on this day the 19th January, 2021.
CHIEF JUDGE
CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT,
HYDERABAD.
Haranadh