VAKA VENKATA SUBBARADDY Vs. BOMMIREDDI RAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions that fall lor determination in this writ petition are (1) whether the tenant has wilfully denied the title of the land-lord rendering himself liable for eviction uuder Section 13 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and (2) Whether this is a case warranting interference under Att. 226 of the Constitution of India,

(2.) The petitioner herein having purchased the and in question under a registered sale deed on 22-4-1967 from the lessor of the 1st respondent herein got issued a lawyer's notice on behalf of himself and his vendor intimating the lessee that he has purchased the land, that the lease amount should be paid to him and that on the expiry of the lease he should hand over possession of the land to him. On receipt of the said notice, the 1st respondent got issued a reply notice through his advocate wherein he asserted that the sale in favour of the petitioner herein was not proper, valid and binding on him. He further went on asserting that he would pay the rent for the lands in his occupataion to whosoever among the two persons that gave him notice, was entitled to receive the same, He thus refused to vacate the land and consequently the petitioner filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground among others that the tenant had wilfully denied the title of the land-lord. In the counter filed by him, the 1st respondent reiterated that the facts averred in his reply notice referred to above be treated as part of the counter. The Tahsildar held that there was a wilful dental of title by the lessee and ordered eviction, On appeal the Sub-Collector reversed the said finding. He was of the view that in the context in which the respondent asserts that the sale in favour of the petitioner was not valid, proper and binding, did not constitute a wilful denial of the title of the land-lord. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition.

(3.) In this writ petition Mr. O. Audinarayana Keddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the denial of the petitioner's title by the lessee cannot but be termed as "Wilful". The lessee was informed by his lessor as well as the purchaser by a Joint notice that the suit land was sold to the petitioner herein under a registerered sale-deed and that the rent should be paid by the lessee to the purchaser. Having received such notice, he could not have entertained any doubt that his lessor had parted with all his right, title and interest in the land in favour of the petitioner herein, He had also asked the tenant to pay the rent to the purchaser. There was no excuse for the tenant to term such a sale-deed as one got up Nor was the assertion that the sale is not proper, valid and binding on him in any way justified, The contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that this assertion was made in the context of the purchaser's claim that the lessee should vacate the land and put him in possession and it only amounted to a denial of the purchaser's right to obtain eviction of the 1st respond dent from the land and did not amount to a denial of his title cannot be accepted. If that was the real intention there was no reason to term the sale deed as one got up and to assert that it is not proper, valid and binding on him. Even while accepting that the sale deed is valid and binding on him, he could have asserted that under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, be is not liable to be evicted and that he is entitled to the protection of the provisions of the said Act. He did not make any such assertion. He chose to deny the validity and binding nature of the sale. In other words, he denied the title of the landlord, That is made further clear by the fact that he refused to pay the rent to the Purchaser. He asserted that he would pay the rent to whomsoever among the two who had given him notice was entitled, meaning thereby that according to him, the petitioner was not entitled to receive the rent,