HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007 Dated 30-12-2014 Between:
Mannem Anitha.
And:
..Petitioner.
Peeramkadu Jagannadham.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is filed against order dated 23-3-2007 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller dated 11-4-2005 in R.C.C.No.41 of 1995 is reversed.
Revision Petitioner herein is landlady and respondent herein is tenant.
Land Lady filed R.C.C.No.41 of 1995 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default, structural alternation, requirement of the building for personal use and denial of title of landlady.
Rent Controller on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence held that landlady established that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent and that she requires the petition schedule premises for her bonafide requirement of running hotel business and that the tenant committed acts of waste in respect of petition schedule premises and denied title of the landlady and on these grounds ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller, tenant preferred appeal to the appellate authority i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and the appellate authority on a reappraisal of evidence held that denial of title of landlady is a bonafide one and when the landlady is not the owner of the petition schedule premises, other grounds like willful default, acts of waste and bonafide requirement need not be examined and accordingly, reversed the eviction order of Rent Controller. Now aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the appellate authority failed to notice that the vendor of the landlady inducted the respondent/tenant into the premises as a tenant which is admitted by the respondent/tenant and therefore, there is attornment automatically and denial of title is not at all bonafide. He submitted that respondent herein entered into a lease agreement with the vendor of the petitioner landlady and she would come within the definition of tenant as per Section 2 (vi) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience) and when the respondent admitted that he paid rents to the vendor of the petitioner landlady, the objection of the tenant that the premises belong to Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Nellore, is not at all tenable. He further submitted that Rent Controller elaborately discussed evidence on record and also objection of the respondent herein with regard to relationship of landlady and tenant and passed a well considered order but the appellate authority without any material decided the appeal in a cryptic way accepting denial of title by respondent as bonafide. He submitted that appellate authority erred in directing the landlady to approach civil court for eviction without noticing that the respondent tenant herein filed R.C.C.seeking permission for deposit of rents.
He also submitted that besides this shop, there are some other shops and in all the shops, tenants are evicted and this objection of denial of title is not accepted by the appellate authority also and revision by one of the tenants 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 respondent submitted that denial of title by the tenant is bonafide because the property belonged to endowment. He further submitted that tenant herein was inducted into the shop in 1969 by one Rajgopal and the said Rajgopal filed writ before this court and during the pendency of the said writ, revision petitioner herein purchased the property knowing fully that there is a cloud over the title.
He also submitted that the appellate authority rightly held that the denial of title is bonafide and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority and that the dispute in respect of the other cases is entirely different and therefore, the contention of the appellant counsel cannot be accepted.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the orders of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
The petition schedule premises is one shop among five portions in door No.320-A and B in ward No.15 which originally belong to one Rajgopal. This petition schedule shop was let out by the said Rajgopal to respondent herein for the purpose of running a glass shop on a monthly rent of Rs.585/- and a rent note was executed on 14-5-1984 between the said Rajgopal and respondent herein. The lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1-6-1984 and ending by 31-5-1987. After demise of said Rajgopal, legal representatives of Rajgopal sold the premises consisting five portions including the petition schedule portion in occupation of this respondent to petitioner herein through a registered document dated 10-3-1985. According to petitioner, she and her husband and son-in-law of late Rajgopal informed the respondent about purchase of property and called upon him to pay the rents and also the arrears due to Rajgopal by then. Revision petitioner herein got issued a notice on 26-6-1995 calling upon him to pay arrears of rent and also deliver vacant possession as the building is required for running a hotel and as the respondent/tenant indulged in committing damage to the building. Respondent contended that the building consisting five portions belongs to Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Nellore and this property was leased out in favour of one Venkata Subbamma on 28-9-1894 and the said Subbamma sold away the property to one V.Krishnaiah on 11-12-1939 and that the said Krishnaiah constructed these shop rooms and died issueless and Rajgopal who is the brother’s son of Krishnaiah claimed rights over shops and he let out them to third parties for rent. The respondent also contended that there is a litigation pending in respect of this property in W.P.No.15980 of 1989 and the petitioner herein has no title over the petition schedule property. On petitioner’s side, one witness is examined and 22 document are marked and on respondent’s side two witnesses are examined and three documents are marked.
From the document Ex.A.2, it is clear that the revision petitioner herein purchased the disputed property from legal representatives of Rajgopal. It is admitted case of respondent that he was inducted into possession by the said Rajgopal as a tenant. Respondent also admitted that he paid rents to said Rajgopal at the rate of Rs.585/- per month. It is also clear from the evidence on record that respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.43 of 2000 before the Rent Controller seeking permission for deposit of rents.
One of the contentions of respondent is that there was dispute in respect of this property and a writ was filed in W.P.No.15980 of 1989. As seen from the order in the writ, some of the occupants of the shops filed writs against Endowment Department and Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Nellore contending that Commissioner of Endowment inspected the premises occupied by writ petitioners and ordered his subordinates to evict them and apprehending forcible dispossession, they approached this court seeking direction that they cannot be dispossessed forcibly without due process of law and this court disposed of the writ petitions directing the temple or endowment authorities to take action in accordance with the provisions of law before resorting to dispossess 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 temple or the authorities against occupants of the shops claiming any right over these shops. So, the contention of the respondent with regard to the litigation in respect of the shop 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 and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.”
From a reading of above provision, it is clear that a landlord also includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive a rent of a building.
Admittedly, respondent was paying rent to the vendor of the revision petitioner. By virtue of sale deed Ex.A.2, the petitioner herein has purchased the same property from Rajgopal to whom the respondent was paying rent from 1969. By virtue of Ex.A.2, petitioner is entitled to receive rents having purchased the same rights from Rajgopal who originally inducted the respondent herein. The very same petitioner filed R.C.C.No.18 of 1995 and R.C.C.No.43 of 1995 against tenants of two portions out of five portions of the main building and both the Rent Control Petitions were allowed and eviction was ordered and appeals preferred by tenants were dismissed and assailing the said orders, revisions were filed before this court and both the revisions were dismissed.
In those cases also, the tenants therein contended that the property belongs to Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Devasthanam, Nellore and regarding dispute in writ petition 15980 of 1989. These objections were negatived and this court upheld the orders of the rent Controller holding that the Rent Controller rightly declared the very same petitioner as owner of the entire premises.
As rightly pointed out by advocate for revision petitioner, learned Rent Controller elaborately considered each and every aspect and held that the objection of the tenant with regard to title is not a bonafide one. But the appellate authority ignoring well considered findings of the Rent Controller simply accepted the objection of tenant with regard to title, without any valid and convincing reasons. The learned appellate authority failed to examine the definition of the landlord under Rent Controller Act which clearly indicate that persons who are receiving rents or entitled to receive rent are also termed as ‘landlords’ and this aspect was lost sight of by the appellate authority.
From a perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller with reference to the evidence on record, I am of the view that the appellate authority committed error in holding that the denial of title by the respondent herein is a bonafide one and as such, the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the order of the appellate authority dated 23-3-2007 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore is set aside confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 11-4-2005 in R.C.C.No.41 of 1995. The respondent herein is granted three months time to vacate the schedule premises.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 30-12-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2007 Dated 30-12-2014