CRP/2602/2007 of Mannem Anitha, Vs Peeramkadu Jagannadham, on 30 December 2014

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007--Dated 30122014

Between:Mannem Anitha.

..Petitioner.

And:

Peeramkadu Jagannadham.

…Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007ORDER:

This revision is filed against order dated 23-3-2007in C.M.A.No.10 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior CivilJudge, Nellore, whereunder orders of the Principal JuniorCivil Judge-cum-Rent Controller dated 11-4-2005 inR.C.C.No.41 of 1995 is reversed.Revision Petitioner herein is landlady andrespondent herein is tenant.

Land Lady filed R.C.C.No.41 of 1995 for eviction ofthe tenant on the ground of willful default, structuralalternation, requirement of the building for personal useand denial of title of landlady.

Rent Controller on a consideration of oral anddocumentary evidence held that landlady established thatthe tenant committed willful default in payment of rent andthat she requires the petition schedule premises for herbonafide requirement of running hotel business and thatthe tenant committed acts of waste in respect of petitionschedule premises and denied title of the landlady and onthese grounds ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the ordersof the Rent Controller, tenant preferred appeal to theappellate authority i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge,Nellore and the appellate authority on a reappraisal ofevidence held that denial of title of landlady is a bonafide one and when the landlady is not the owner of the petitionschedule premises, other grounds like willful default, actsof waste and bonafide requirement need not be examinedand accordingly, reversed the eviction order of RentController. Now aggrieved by the orders of the appellateauthority, present revision is preferred. Heard both sides.

Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that theappellate authority failed to notice that the vendor of thelandlady inducted the respondent/tenant into the premisesas a tenant which is admitted by the respondent/tenantand therefore, there is attornment automatically anddenial of title is not at all bonafide. He submitted thatrespondent herein entered into a lease agreement withthe vendor of the petitioner landlady and she would comewithin the definition of tenant as per Section 2 (vi) of theA.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,1960 (herein after referred to as “the Act” for the sake ofconvenience) and when the respondent admitted that hepaid rents to the vendor of the petitioner landlady, theobjection of the tenant that the premises belong to SriTalpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Nellore, isnot at all tenable. He further submitted that RentController elaborately discussed evidence on record andalso objection of the respondent herein with regard to relationship of landlady and tenant and passed a wellconsidered order but the appellate authority without anymaterial decided the appeal in a cryptic way acceptingdenial of title by respondent as bonafide. He submittedthat appellate authority erred in directing the landlady toapproach civil court for eviction without noticing that therespondent tenant herein filed R.C.C.seeking permissionfor deposit of rents.

He also submitted that besides this shop, there aresome other shops and in all the shops, tenants areevicted and this objection of denial of title is not acceptedby the appellate authority also and revision by one of thetenants is also dismissed by this court and therefore, the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, advocate for respondentsubmitted that denial of title by the tenant is bonafidebecause the property belonged to endowment. He furthersubmitted that tenant herein was inducted into the shop in1969 by one Rajgopal and the said Rajgopal filed writbefore this court and during the pendency of the said writ,revision petitioner herein purchased the property knowingfully that there is a cloud over the title.

He also submitted that the appellate authorityrightly held that the denial of title is bonafide and that thereare no grounds to interfere with the findings of theappellate authority and that the dispute in respect of theother cases is entirely different and therefore, thecontention of the appellant counsel cannot be accepted.

Now the point that would arise for my considerationin this revision is whether the orders of the courts beloware legal, correct and proper?

POINT:

The petition schedule premises is one shop amongfive portions in door No.320-A and B in ward No.15 whichoriginally belong to one Rajgopal. This petition scheduleshop was let out by the said Rajgopal to respondentherein for the purpose of running a glass shop on a monthly rent of Rs.585/- and a rent note was executed on14-5-1984 between the said Rajgopal and respondentherein. The lease was for a period of three yearscommencing from 1-6-1984 and ending by 31-5-1987. After demise of said Rajgopal, legal representatives ofRajgopal sold the premises consisting five portionsincluding the petition schedule portion in occupation ofthis respondent to petitioner herein through a registereddocument dated 10-3-1985. According to petitioner, sheand her husband and son-in-law of late Rajgopal informedthe respondent about purchase of property and calledupon him to pay the rents and also the arrears due toRajgopal by then. Revision petitioner herein got issued a notice on 26-6-1995 calling upon him to pay arrears ofrent and also deliver vacant possession as the building isrequired for running a hotel and as the respondent/tenantindulged in committing damage to the building. Respondent contended that the building consisting fiveportions belongs to Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha SwamyDevasthanam, Nellore and this property was leased out infavour of one Venkata Subbamma on 28-9-1894 and thesaid Subbamma sold away the property to oneV.Krishnaiah on 11-12-1939 and that the saidKrishnaiah constructed these shop rooms and diedissueless and Rajgopal who is the brother’s son ofKrishnaiah claimed rights over shops and he let out themto third parties for rent. The respondent also contendedthat there is a litigation pending in respect of this propertyin W.P.No.15980 of 1989 and the petitioner herein has notitle over the petition schedule property. On petitioner’sside, one witness is examined and 22 document aremarked and on respondent’s side two witnesses areexamined and three documents are marked.

From the document Ex.A.2, it is clear that therevision petitioner herein purchased the disputed propertyfrom legal representatives of Rajgopal. It is admitted caseof respondent that he was inducted into possession bythe said Rajgopal as a tenant. Respondent also admittedthat he paid rents to said Rajgopal at the rate of Rs.585/-per month. It is also clear from the evidence on recordthat respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.43 of 2000 beforethe Rent Controller seeking permission for deposit ofrents.

One of the contentions of respondent is that therewas dispute in respect of this property and a writ was filedin W.P.No.15980 of 1989. As seen from the order in thewrit, some of the occupants of the shops filed writs againstEndowment Department and Sri Talpagiri RanganadhaSwamy Devasthanam, Nellore contending thatCommissioner of Endowment inspected the premisesoccupied by writ petitioners and ordered his subordinates to evict them and apprehending forcible dispossession,they approached this court seeking direction that theycannot be dispossessed forcibly without due process oflaw and this court disposed of the writ petitions directingthe temple or endowment authorities to take action inaccordance with the provisions of law before resorting todispossess the petitioners from their respective shops. Though this writ order is passed in the year 1997, till now,no steps appear to have been taken either by the templeor the authorities against occupants of the shops claimingany right over these shops. So, the contention of therespondent with regard to the litigation in respect of theshop rooms is not a tenable one.

Section 2(iv) of the Act defined the word ‘landlord’which reads as follows:

“Landlord” means the owner of a building andincludes a person who is receiving or is entitled toreceive the rent of a building, whether on his ownaccount or on behalf of another person or on behalf ofhimself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor,administrator, receiver or guardian or who would soreceive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if thebuilding were let to a tenant.”

From a reading of above provision, it is clear that alandlord also includes a person who is receiving or isentitled to receive a rent of a building.

Admittedly, respondent was paying rent to thevendor of the revision petitioner. By virtue of sale deedEx.A.2, the petitioner herein has purchased the sameproperty from Rajgopal to whom the respondent waspaying rent from 1969. By virtue of Ex.A.2, petitioner isentitled to receive rents having purchased the same rightsfrom Rajgopal who originally inducted the respondentherein. The very same petitioner filed R.C.C.No.18 of1995 and R.C.C.No.43 of 1995 against tenants of twoportions out of five portions of the main building and boththe Rent Control Petitions were allowed and eviction wasordered and appeals preferred by tenants were dismissedand assailing the said orders, revisions were filed before this court and both the revisions were dismissed.

In those cases also, the tenants therein contendedthat the property belongs to Sri Talpagiri RanganadhaSwamy Devasthanam, Nellore and regarding dispute inwrit petition 15980 of 1989. These objections werenegatived and this court upheld the orders of the rentController holding that the Rent Controller rightly declaredthe very same petitioner as owner of the entire premises.

As rightly pointed out by advocate for revisionpetitioner, learned Rent Controller elaborately consideredeach and every aspect and held that the objection of thetenant with regard to title is not a bonafide one. But theappellate authority ignoring well considered findings of theRent Controller simply accepted the objection of tenantwith regard to title, without any valid and convincingreasons. The learned appellate authority failed toexamine the definition of the landlord under RentController Act which clearly indicate that persons who arereceiving rents or entitled to receive rent are also termedas ‘landlords’ and this aspect was lost sight of by theappellate authority.

Conclusion

From a perusal of the order of the learned RentController with reference to the evidence on record, I amof the view that the appellate authority committed error inholding that the denial of title by the respondent herein is abonafide one and as such, the order of the appellateauthority is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the order ofthe appellate authority dated 23-3-2007 in C.M.A.No.10 of2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore isset aside confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated11-4-2005 in R.C.C.No.41 of 1995. The respondentherein is granted three months time to vacate theschedule premises.

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, theMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall standdismissed.

_______________________

JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

--Dated 30122014.

Dvs.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

Dvs

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007--Dated 30122014