Satti Siva Ramakrishna, Krishna ... vs Uttaradi Math, Karnataka State
2021 Latest Caselaw 3555 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA


           SECOND APPEAL Nos.837 and 838 of 2017


COMMON JUDGMENT:

      The appellants in both these appeals are the tenants of the

respondent-Math.

2. The appellant in S.A.No.837 of 2017 is a tenant of the

ground floor shop and whereas the appellant in S.A.No.838 of

2017 is tenant of another shop in the ground floor in

R.C.C.building bearing D.No.11-62-4 situated in canal road,

Vijayawada. This building admittedly belonged to the

respondent-Math.

3. The respondent instituted suits for eviction against these

appellants that were tried by the Court of learned VI Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

4. The claim of the respondent against the appellants in both

these suits was for their eviction and to direct them to pay

damages till delivery of the possession @ Rs.6,000/- p.m. from

the date of institution of the suit.

5. Predominantly, the claim of the respondent is based on

termination of tenancy under Quit Notices issued under Section

106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants issued replies

there for raising different grounds resisting them.

6. The defence predominantly raised by the appellants is

based on Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings(Lease, Rent

and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') claiming that

they have been statutory tenants of the shop rooms, which they

have been in possession and enjoyment for more than 25 years

including from the time of their forefathers.

7. After settlement of issues in the trial Court, both the

parties went to trial, where oral and documentary evidence was

let in.

8. On the premise that Section 12 of the aforestated Act is

applicable and holding that since the demised premises is the

subject matter of litigation, learned trial Judge dismissed the

suit. Another observation recorded by the trial court was that

the validity of the Quit Notice was not established and therefore,

the respondent was not entitled to seek eviction of the

appellants from the demised shop premises.

9. The respondent preferred regular appeals under Section 96

C.P.C. Learned appellate Judge, upon reappraisal of material

and evidence, reversed the findings so recorded by the trial

Court, setting aside the judgments and decrees in both the

matters.

10. Accepting the contention of the respondent in all respects

holding that Section 12 of the Act did not apply and that there

was valid Quit Notice terminating tenancy of the appellants, in

the appeals, their eviction was directed granting four months

time from the date of judgment therein. However, claim of the

respondent for damages was directed to be decided in a separate

proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C to be initiated by the

respondent.

11. Against these decrees and judgments of the appellate

Court, these two second appeals are presented by the

appellants.

12. In both these matters, this court directed notice to the

respondent on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 would have no application to the premises in question"?

13. In view of this question, now the requirement is to decide

not only whether Andhra Pradesh Buildings(Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is applicable to the demised shop

rooms, but also consideration of the effect of Quit Notice issued

under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, relating to

jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suits.

14. The strength of the appellants is their alleged re-induction

as tenants into demised shop rooms on behalf of the respondent.

Broadly there is no dispute that either the appellants or their

immediate predecessors were in occupation of certain portions

of the premises belonging to the respondent prior to

reconstruction upon its demolition. Since the entire building was

on the verge of being collapsed, notice was served by the

Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada on the respondent either to

remove this building and in the event of their failure, the

Municipal Corporation itself to carry out its demolition.

15. The material on record is making out that it is at the

instance of the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, the old

building existing in the same premises was demolished in or

about the year 2003. This fact is not disputed by the appellants.

The trial court also recorded the finding to this effect basing on

the admission of the appellants in the course of trial. A new

structure was raised in the same premises in the year 2004 by

the respondent. The shop rooms in question are part of this new

premises.

16. The appellants contended that they were re-inducted into

these shop rooms on account of agreement between them on the

one hand and the representatives of the respondent on the other

in the year 2004. The appellate court did not favour this

contention on the premise that there is no proof of this alleged

agreement, which undisputedly is not evidenced by any

document on record.

17. The contention on behalf of the appellants basing on

Section 12 of the Act was not favoured by the learned appellate

Judge on the premise that the respondent did not agree prior to

the demolition of old structure to re-induct them as the tenants

and the demolition went on, on account of an act of a third

party-Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. Reliance placed on

behalf of the appellants in the case of Uppala Veeresam v.

Alladi Sairam(2005(2) ALT 209(DB)) in this context was not

accepted distinguishing this ruling on facts, since it was the case,

where there was a prior agreement between the parties prior to

demolition of existing structure, to continue the tenancy in the

new structure raised in the same premises. Finding that the

facts in this case are not similar on account of the act of

demolition by the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, which was

not at the instance of the respondent, such contention was

negatived rightly.

18. The reasons assigned by the learned appellate Judge in this

context are unexceptional calling for no interference on

consideration of the material on record.

19. The next question is application of Section 32 of the same

Act, which provides for certain exceptions, exempting the

buildings from operation of this Act. For this purpose, on

account of the admitted case of the tenants namely the

appellants themselves that they have been the tenants of this

demised shop rooms from the year 2004 in the reconstructed

premises, on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, this objection cannot

stand.

20. Learned appellate Judge considered this fact with

reference to the date of construction of the building and thus

held that this Act is not applicable. It was a ground with

reference to application of Section 32(b) of this Act. It is rather

difficult for this court sitting in second appeal to reconsider this

matter upon reappraisal of the evidence, in these circumstances.

21. Validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of

Property Act in both the instances was upheld by the appellate

Judge, recording clear and convincing reasons. In such an event,

the contention of the appellants that the demised shop rooms

are covered by the above Act cannot reconsider. Hence, there is

no jurisdictional issue involved.

22. Therefore, in the light of the observations of the appellate

court, which are based on the fact situation, the substantial

question raised on behalf of the appellants now in these second

appeals did not stand for reconsideration nor requires

determination.

23. This court is satisfied that there is no such substantial

question of law in both these second appeals.

24. Therefore, these second appeals are dismissed confirming

the decrees and judgments of the appellate court. The

appellants are granted six months time to vacate the demised

shop rooms. The direction of the learned appellate Judge to

decide the question of damages in a separate enquiry initiated at

the instance of the respondent holds good. The respondent if so

advised can file appropriate petition under Order XX Rule 12

C.P.C before the trial Court for this purpose. No costs.

25. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall

stand closed.

26. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

_____________________ M.VENKATA RAMANA, J Date: 15.09.2021

Pab