THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR C.R.P. Nos.2486 & 2575 of 2007 Date:19.12.2014 CRP No.2486/2007 Between:
Sri B.P. Yesuratnam and another.
. Petitioner.
AND M/s. Vijaya Agencies represented by its Proprietor Vijaya Nandini and another.
. Respondents.
CRP No.2575/2007 Between:
Sri B.P. Yesuratnam and another.
. Petitioner.
AND Sri Prem Sagar and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR C.R.P. Nos.2486 & 2575 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions arise out of the same proceedings, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. CRP No.2486/2007 is filed aggrieved by order dated 23- 02-2007 in E.A.No.34/2002 in E.P.No.10/2002 in R.C.No.253/1997 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
3. CRP No.2575/2007 is filed aggrieved by order dated 23- 02-2007 in E.P.No.10/2002 in R.C.No.253/1997 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
4. The revision petitioners herein filed R.C.No.253/1997 for eviction of second and third respondents herein on the grounds of wilful default and that the premises is required as additional accommodation for use and occupation of family members of revision petitioners herein and the said application is resisted by second respondent herein contending that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the second respondent and revision petitioners herein and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. It is also contended that second respondent never paid any rents to petitioners and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, and the question of payment of rents or seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement does not arise. Rent Controller allowed eviction petition and after the said orders have become final, the revision petitioners herein filed E.P for execution of the said order and in that, first respondent herein filed claim petition in E.A.No.34/2002 by invoking Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 read with 47 of CPC contending that he is absolute owner of the schedule property, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 16-06-1999 from his vendor B. Vasanthraj. He further contended that his vendor Vasanthraj purchased the said property from G. Shivanandam under a registered sale deed dated 26-12-1985 and the said Shivanandam purchased that property from revision petitioners herein through a registered sale deed dated 18- 09-1980 and ever since the date of purchase, he is paying municipal tax and that the revision petitioners herein have no semblance of right in the suit property.
A detailed enquiry was conducted in the claim petition and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, claim petition of first respondent herein was allowed and aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
5. Both sides argued at length referring to the various proceedings that took place till now between the parties.
6. Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners purchased property bearing No.3-4-685, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad through a registered sale deed dated 23-05-1977 and the said property is an extent of 277 square yards. He submitted that the revision petitioners were in need of money and they obtained loan of Rs.25,000/- from one K. Viswanandam on 18-09-1980 and as a security of the said loan, petitioners agreed to convey 36 square yards of site to said Viswanadam, but the said Viswanadam obtained a registered sale deed in the name of one G. Shivanandam on 18-09-1980 for an extent of 100 square yards and that the revision petitioners have not seen the said Shivanandam and he is only a name lender.
He submitted that though sale deed was executed on 18-09- 1980, the petitioners continued to remain in possession of that part of property also. He submitted that the said Viswanadam got an agreement of re-conveyance executed by Shivanandam on 08-01-1981 in favour of the petitioners with a condition that the property will be re-conveyed on payment of Rs.28,000/- within one year from the date of agreement and that petitioners repaid the loan amount to Viswanadam. He submitted that Viswanadam filed O.S.No.3288/1982 through said Shivanandam for recovery of Rs.3,000/- and that the said suit was dismissed for default on 22-09-1986. He submitted that on 22-09-1982, a notice was issued on behalf of Shivanandam to petitioners seeking eviction of the premises on the pretext that petitioners are tenants of Shivanandam and another notice was got issued by Shivanandam on 18-03-1983 demanding arrears of rent. He submitted that subsequent to the issue of these notices, on 20-08-1983, Shivanandam filed R.C.No.249/1983 before Principal Rent Controller for eviction of petitioners on the ground of wilful default and during pendency of that eviction petition, Viswanadham died in 1985. He submitted that revision petitioners herein let out the premises in their possession to Vijaya Agencies belonging to C. Naresh Babu on 01-10-1985. He submitted that during pendency of R.C.No.249/1983, Shivanandam alienated the property to G. Vasanthraj through a sale deed dated 26-12-1985 and on 01- 04-1986, R.C.No.249/1983 was withdrawn by filing a memo that the petitioners herein have vacated and delivered vacant possession and the eviction petition was dismissed in terms of the memo in spite of protest from the petitioners denying delivery of possession or vacating the premises. He further submitted that Naresh Babu filed O.S.No.389/1987 before IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction against first revision petitioner herein and Vasanthraj and the said suit was decreed on 07-08-1995 by granting injunction in favour of Naresh Babu not to dispossess him without due process of law. He submitted that Naresh Babu having noticed the dispute with Vasanthraj in respect of the premises, discontinued payment of rent from 1986.
He submitted that the said Naresh Babu colluded with his relative Vidayasagar got filed rent control case in R.C.No.208/2007 by creating a fictitious landlord-tenant relationship between Vidyasagr and Jalaluddin on 12-03- 1997 and the said petition was allowed on 10-03-1998.
He submitted that in April, 1997, the revision petitioners filed R.C.No.253/1997 seeking eviction of Vijaya Agencies and Naresh Babu on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement and the rent controller, after full fledged enquiry, accepted the version of revision petitioner and ordered eviction and the same has become final and to defeat the fruits of the said order, a collusive claim petition was filed and the trial Court, without properly appreciating the material, allowed the claim petition and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, Advocate for first respondent/ claim petitioner submitted that there is a clear title dispute and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction and that the claim of the first respondent herein was rightly accepted by the Rent Controller. He submitted that the petitioners herein do not fall within the ambit of owner as defined in the Rent Control Act, because there is no evidence to show that petitioners were receiving rents in respect of the schedule property at any time prior to filing of the eviction petition or during pendency of the eviction petition. He submitted that as the schedule property was sold away even according to the admitted case of the petitioners, they cannot be termed as owners and their version that the sale deed was executed as security for a loan is not at all substantiated with any evidence and that the learned Rent Controller has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record and that there is no jurisdictional error to exercise the revisional powers and the revisions are devoid of merits.
8. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these revisions whether orders of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
9. Point:- There is no dispute with regard to proceedings that took place prior to filing of this claim petition. As seen from the material papers, the petitioners herein executed a registered sale deed in favour of G. Shivanandam on 18-09- 1980 in respect of the schedule property and the said Shivanandam sold the said property to B. Vasanthraj through a registered sale deed dated 26-12-1985 and the said Vasanthraj in turn, sold the property to claim petitioner /first respondent herein through a registered sale deed dated 16- 06-1999. It is the contention of the petitioners that though sale deed was executed in favour of Shivanandam, possession is continued with them and they have been enjoying and it was leased out to C. Naresh Babu on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- with a condition that the tenant should pay electricity, water charges and municipal taxes in addition to the rent. Revision petitioners filed eviction petition in R.C.No.253/1997 on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. It is the specific case of petitioners that the said Naresh Babu discontinued payment of rent from November, 1986. According to petitioners, about 89 months rent was due from Naresh Babu by the date of filing of eviction petition. Admittedly, no proceedings are instituted for recovery of the alleged arrears of rent from Naresh Babu prior to filing of eviction petition. From the material, it is also clear that Shivanandam, who purchased property from petitioners, got issued a notice demanding rent from the petitioners on the ground that the property was leased out to petitioners herein and though two registered notices were issued, no reply was given on behalf of the petitioners for both the notices. It is also clear from the material on record, Shivanandam filed R.C.No.249/1983 against petitioners herein seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default and that petition was ultimately withdrawn by filing a memo that petitioners have voluntarily vacated the premises. According to petitioners that they have disputed the correctness of the said memo, but in spite of that, the Rent Controller recorded the memo of the Shivanandam, who fled R.C.No.249/1983. Though such an order is passed recording that petitioners herein have voluntarily vacated the premises, recognizing them as tenants of Shivanandam that order was not challenged by the petitioners herein. When such is the factual position, the contention of the petitioners that all the proceedings against them are collusive proceedings and that they have to be ignored, cannot be accepted when there is no material supporting the version of petitioners that the property was given as security for the loan amount and that the sale deed in favour of Shivanandam is only a nominal one. Admittedly, petitioners have not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the grounds that are contended in the rent control proceedings. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for first respondent/claim petitioner, there is a clear title dispute and the petitioners cannot be termed as owner, within the meaning of Section 2 (vi) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which reads as follows:-
Section 2 (vi) “Land Lord” 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.”
10. As per Section 2 (vi) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the petitioners can be treated as owners, if they are able to show that they have been receiving rent on the schedule property. There is no semblance of evidence to show that petitioners received any rent from C. Naresh Babu any time after 01-10-1985. Even admitted case of petitioners is that Naresh Babu discontinued payment of rents from November, 1986 and even then, no proceedings are instituted either for recovery of rent or for eviction till 1997. This speaks volumes about the correctness of the plea of the revision petitioners.
11. Revisional powers are very limited and only when there is wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate Courts or when there is illegal exercise of jurisdiction or when there is material irregularity, then only this Court can interfere with the orders of the subordinate Court. Here the learned Rent Controller has not exercised wrong jurisdiction nor there is any material irregularity in the order of the learned Rent Controller on any of the material aspects. The Principal Rent Controller elaborately discussed each aspect with reference to material on record and there is no wrong appreciation of evidence on any of the aspects and it is a well considered order, which does not suffer from any illegality of law or factual illegality and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the said orders.
12. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, accepted the claim of the first respondent herein, for which he is empowered under Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 read with 47 of CPC and as the claim of 1st respondent is recognized and accepted, the main E.P was rightly dismissed.
13. For these reasons, I am of the view that both revisions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders of the Court below.
14. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed with costs.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:19.12.2014 mrb