Unknown vs The Hon'Ble Justice Dr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3412 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1207 of 2019

ORDER:

A landlord seeks justice through this revision filed under

Section 22(1) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and to set aside the order dated

19.12.2018 of the learned Appellate Authority-cum-Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.M.A.No.62 of 2015 by

which order the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order

dated 30.10.2015 of learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.102 of 2013.

2. Respondent herein is the tenant.

3. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for revision petitioner

and Sri D.Butchi Babu, learned counsel for respondent

submitted their respective arguments and cited legal

authorities.

4. There is a building situate in Governorpet, Vijayawada.

That building is owned by Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad. This

building has a ground floor and a first floor. Several tenants are

in occupation of this building. One such tenant is Sri Parvinder

Singh Kohili. He is managing a godown in the said premises.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

The rent per month is Rs.3,000/-. It seems that he has been a

tenant in that premises since 1998. While so, a part of this

building was purchased by Sri Padarthi Sridhar under a

registered sale deed dated 20.12.2010. The part of the building

that is purchased by him consists of a few rooms in which there

are tenants. It is in the backdrop of these facts, the litigation

emerged between Sri Padarthi Sridhar and Sri Parvinder Singh

Kohili. Sri Padarthi Sridhar filed R.C.C.No.102 of 2013 before

the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada seeking for eviction of Sri Parvinder Singh

Kohili. His claim is that he informed to Sri Parvinder Singh

Kohili about becoming owner of this property and demanded

him to pay rents from January, 2011 but the tenant has not

been paying. He got issued a notice dated 26.09.2013 and

asked him to vacate the premises and pay the arrear rents. He

stated that he requires this property for his personal use and

occupation and that this building is more than 50 years old and

that the tenant has been altering and changing the physical

features of it without his consent and knowledge. As against

that, Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili filed a counter wherein he

claimed that he has been a tenant studiously paying rents to his

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad and the rents have been paid

by way of cheques and he was never irregular in paying rents.

When he received notice from the petitioner, he contacted his

original landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad informing him that

he was demanded to pay rents by Sri P.Sridhar and his landlord

Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad told him that he never sold this

particular piece of property to him and on the other hand, he

himself demanded rents for him. Confused by these rival

claims, the tenant filed R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and prayed the

learned Rent Controller to permit him to deposit the rents till

the issues are sorted out between the two rival title holders.

Notices were sent to Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad as well as to

Sri Padarthi Sridhar. None appeared to contest R.C.C.No.13 of

2014. In those circumstances, that petition was allowed. It is

further stated that on 25.06.2012 the petitioner and his

followers attempted to demolish the premises and other

premises adjacent to it and that resulted in registration of Crime

No.176 of 2012 by Governorpet Police Station. At para No.9 of

his counter the tenant categorically pleaded that the premises

in his occupation as a tenant is not part of the property

purchased by the petitioner. He further pleaded that there was

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

no attornment. He denied rest of the allegations. He sought for

dismissal of the petition. During enquiry, the learned Rent

Controller settled the following points for consideration:

1. Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent with respect to petition schedule premises?

2. Whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents at rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to him from January, 2011?

3. Whether the petitioner requires the schedule premises bonafidely to start his new intended business as prayed by him?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of respondent for the grounds of willful default and bonafide requirement for his personal occupation?

5. To what relief?

5. For landlord, there is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and

Exs.P.1 to P.5. For tenant, there is evidence of RWs.1 to 3 and

Exs.R.1 to R.5. On considering the material on record and the

submissions advanced by both sides, the learned Rent

Controller recorded a finding that the petitioner/landlord failed

to establish that for the petition schedule property he is the

landlord. Finding that there was no jural relationship it

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

answered point No.1 as against the petitioner. In view of its

conclusions reached above, the learned Rent Controller felt that

there was no legal need to consider the other points and

accordingly it dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved by

that, landlord moved R.C.C.M.A.No.62 of 2015 before learned

Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada. The learned Appellate Authority considered the

entire evidence on record and submissions on both sides and

the impugned order before it and it agreed with findings of the

learned Rent Controller and dismissed the said appeal. That

drove the landlord to file the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner referred to various

paragraphs of the orders impugned to submit that both the

authorities below committed a grave error in recording a finding

that the sale deed under which this revision petitioner became

owner of the property does not contain a recital about

attornment of tenancy disputed herein and it was on that

premise they dismissed his petition and appeal and that is

erroneous and against law. Learned counsel submits that the

purport of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and

the judgments of various Courts and that of the Hon'ble

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

Supreme Court of India indicate that on transfer of title the

tenancy should be deemed to have been attorned and the

transfer deed does not require a recital about attornment. In

support of it, learned counsel cited Gopi alias Goverdhannath

(d) by LRs. v. Sri Ballabh Vyas1. Learned counsel further

submits that the tenant is in illegal occupation of the property

and he has not been vacating and has not been paying rents

and requests this Court to exercise powers under Order XV Rule

5 C.P.C. and strike off the defence and cited Asha Rani Gupta

v. Vineet Kumar2.

7. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent submits

that the rival disputes before the learned Rent Controller is to

the effect that the tenant never denied his occupation of the

premises as a tenant, he never denied the rights of his original

landlord and his contention has always been that the present

revision petitioner has never become owner of that part of the

premises which has been in the occupation of this respondent

as a tenant and it is in that way there has been no jural

AIR 2022 SC 5248

AIR Online 2022 SC 983

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

relationship between them. Learned counsel further submits

that attornment is automatic and he does not dispute ruling

cited by the learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the

aspect of attornment was considered by the authorities below

only with a view to find out whether there was enough proof

demonstrated by the landlord that he became owner of the

premises that has been in occupation of the present respondent.

Learned counsel submits that on concurrent findings of facts

the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22 of

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control

Act is very limited and unless there is illegality, irregularity or

impropriety or patent injustice, this Court cannot disturb the

impugned orders. In support of it, learned counsel cited

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar

Singh3 and Tuunuguntla Enterprises v. Majeti Venktata

Ramakoti Mutyalu4.

(2014) 9 SCC 78

2016 (2) ALD 763 (AP)

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

8. The point that falls for consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality or

irregularity or impropriety requiring interference?

POINT:

9. Record indicates Ex.P.1 is certified copy of sale deed dated

20.12.2010 standing in favour of the present revision petitioner.

He purchased a part of the building which consists of other

parts over which he does not own title. The question that fell

for consideration before the lower authorities was whether the

premises in occupation of respondent which originally belonged

to Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad was alienated by the said original

owner in favour of the present revision petitioner under Ex.P.1-

registered sale deed. It was in that context, the point that fell

for consideration before learned Rent Controller was about

existence or otherwise of landlord and tenant jural relationship

between these parties. The contention of the tenant/respondent

herein that the portion in occupation of him was not alienated

by original landlord to the present revision petitioner is clear

from his counter. That particular contention is noticed by the

learned Rent Controller in para No.3 of its order. It was in that

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

context there was need between parties to establish whether the

petition schedule property was alienated by original owner in

favour of the present revision petitioner or not. That disputed

fact could be proved by producing the evidence of the original

owner Sri Kondanda Ram Prasad and by verification of contents

of Ex.P.1. Revision petitioner, who claimed to be the present

owner of that disputed premises, was expected to adduce the

evidence of his predecessors in title. He did not choose to

examine him. His failure to examine him as a witness gains

relevance in the context of specific stand taken by the tenant in

his counter and in his evidence wherein he stated that

subsequent to receiving Ex.P.2-legal notice from this revision

petitioner he informed this fact to Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad

and asked him as to who is the present landlord for this

premises and it was stated that Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad

told him that he did not alienate this part of the property to the

revision petitioner. Therefore, the lapse was there on part of the

revision petitioner in failure to adduce proper evidence. Learned

counsel for revision petitioner contended that in R.C.C.No.13 of

2014 filed by the respondent seeking permission of the learned

Rent Controller to deposit the rents Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

did not appear and contest and that itself is an indication that

he alienated the property to this revision petitioner. This

contention has no force. As a matter of fact, this revision

petitioner also did not participate in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and he

chose to remain ex parte. Respondent/tenant had to file

R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 only because the present revision

petitioner was contending about his ownership of the disputed

premises. Referring to this aspect of the matter, learned Rent

Controller at para No.10 of its order recorded that by virtue of

the averments in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and the absence of the

present revision petitioner and the earlier holder of title even in

that proceedings, the jural relationship between the present

petitioner and present respondent was not established. During

the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent

submitted that in Ex.P.1 for the property purchased by this

revision petitioner boundaries are mentioned and as per those

boundaries, the property in possession of this respondent does

not fall within the schedule mentioned therein. Perhaps it is

this contention that made the authorities below to conclude that

the disputed premises was not part of the property purchased

by this revision petitioner under Ex.P.1.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

10. To the extent of property purchased by the revision

petitioner under Ex.P.1 there are other tenants. The lower

Authority as well as Appellate Authority have specifically

referred to the recitals in Ex.P.1 indicating that one

Mr. V.Jagadish is a tenant in the property that was purchased

by this revision petitioner. Attornment of that tenancy is also

mentioned therein. Conspicuous omission in Ex.P.1 is about

any reference to the premises occupied by the present

respondent as a tenant. It is on these facts that came up in

evidence the authorities below concluded that the absence of

attornment with reference to the present respondent is another

indication to show that the premises in the possession of

respondent was not part of Ex.P.1. It is only in that context of

the facts authorities below discussed the absence of attornment.

The lower appellate authority at para No.16 made this aspect

very clear. It recorded that if really the portion that is under the

occupation of the present respondent is purchased by the

present revision petitioner, attornment is automatic irrespective

of the fact whether it was recorded in Ex.P.1-sale deed or not.

He seems to have inferred that non-mentioning of the name of

the present respondent for the purpose of attornment is a

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

positive proof to show that, that part of the property was not

purchased by the present revision petitioner. Thus, it is not as

though that the lower authorities failed to recognize Section 109

of the Transfer of Property Act or about automatic attornment of

tenancy when there was change in the title of the landlord. It is

true a cursory reading of the orders of the both authorities

below would give an impression that major part of their

discussion was given with reference to attornment. However,

that by itself did not make the authorities to conclude the

disputed issue as to whether this revision petitioner is the

landlord for the premises occupied by this respondent. It is in

these circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Rent

Controller as well as the Appellate Authority adverted to the

evidence on record and appreciated it in accordance with law

and reached to appropriate conclusions. Though learned

counsel for revision petitioner fervently submitted that

respondent/tenant has not been paying rents and therefore, his

defence shall be struck off, this Court finds no relevance of that

contention for deciding the present revision petition. It is

irrelevant for consideration since both the authorities below as

well as this Court have reached to the same conclusion that

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

there has been no material to say that the present revision

petitioner has become owner of the premises that is under

occupation of the respondent. Therefore, this contention is

negatived. There is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in

the impugned order. Therefore, the point is answered against

the revision petitioner.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 13.07.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.1207 of 2019

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1207 of 2019

Date: 13.07.2023

Ivd