ADIKARI RANGARAO Vs. BYREDDI TULASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Adikari Ranga Rao, the tenant - 1st respondent in R.C.C.No. 39/86 on the file of Rent Controller, Vijayawada, the Revision Petitioner, died pending this Civil Revision Petition and petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased tenant in C.M.P.No. 16291/2001 dated 31-7-2003. Likewise, Byreddi Tulasamma, the original landlady also died pending R.C.C.M.A.No. 68/92 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge/Appellate Authority under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act", and respondents 6 to 11 were brought on record as her legal representatives in I.A.No. 8693/96.

(2.) Byreddi Tulasamma, the landlady filed R.C.C.No. 39/86 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, praying for the relief of eviction from the petition schedule property on the ground that an extent of 1500 sq. yards of site and building thereon had been let out to Adikari Ranga Rao/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and the said tenant committed willful default in payment of rents from 26-7-1985 upto the date of the eviction petition and that the tenant, without consent of the landlady constructed sheds in the vacant site and sub-let the same for residence to respondents 2 to 5 and that the tenant put the petition schedule property for a purpose different from the purpose for which the property was let out; that by making constructions in the vacant site, the tenant is guilty of acts of waste; and the landlady required the petition schedule property for her bona fide occupation and also on the ground that denial of title of the landlady by the tenant is not bona fide. The tenant had taken a stand that the extent let out is only 500 sq. yards of site with building thereon and the site on which the tenant made constructions in fact was not let out to him and it is only a poramboke site and the same was let out by him to respondents 2 to 5 and he had not committed any default in payment of rents and had not sub-let the premises and not guilty of acts of waste and the requirement made by the landlady for personal occupation is not at all bona fide, and in such circumstances there is no question of denying the title of the landlady at all in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The learned Rent Controller had ordered eviction on the grounds of denial of title not being bona fide, sub-letting the premises, use of the petition schedule property for the purpose other than the purpose for which the same was let out, by an order dated 15-6-1992. No doubt the learned Rent Controller had rejected the groups of willful default, acts of waste and requirement for personal occupation. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.C.M.A.No. 68/92 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge/Appellate Authority, Vijayawada, and as aforesaid, during the pendency of the appeal, the landlady died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada/ Appellate Authority also had confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal on 13-10-2000. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada/Appellate Authority also had arrived at a conclusion that inasmuch as there were no independent Cross Objections in relation to the grounds which had been rejected by the learned Rent Controller, Vijayawada, there was no need to disturb the said findings also. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition and as referred to supra, pending the Civil Revision Petition, the tenant too died and his legal representatives are at present prosecuting the present litigation.

(3.) Sri Srinivas Murthy, counsel representing the legal representatives of the deceased tenant/Revision Petitioners had submitted that the tenant had taken a clear and a specific stand that the property let out was only an extent of 500 sq. yards and not 1500 sq. yards, no doubt with a building thereon, and in the light of the specific stand and the oral and documentary evidence available, the Tribunals below should have arrived at a conclusion that there is no denial of title and there is no question of sub-letting and using the property for a purpose other than for which it was. let out. The learned Counsel also contended that as far as the rest of the property on which constructions were made by the tenant, the same cannot be the subject matter of this litigation since there was never landlady and tenant relationship between the parties in relation to the said property. The learned Counsel also commented, that these houses were constructed by the tenant in 1967 and his name also was mutated and he had been paying taxes inducting the tenants to the knowledge of the landlady and this conduct of the landlady would clearly point out that the stand taken by the landlady cannot be accepted. The Counsel also would maintain that the tenant himself by asserting his title in relation to the houses constructed by him filed the suit O.S.No. 1009/80 against one of the tenants and obtained a decree, and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the landlady is estopped from contending otherwise as far as the rest of the property is concerned. The Counsel would maintain that since the Tribunals below had recorded a finding that the property let out was 1500 sq. yards with a building, the consequential findings were recorded relating to denial of title, sub-letting and user for the purpose other than the purpose for which the petition schedule property was let out, and when the very fact of leasing out 1500 sq. yards site and the building cannot be believed, in the light of these facts, the necessary consequence should be that the tenant is not liable to be evicted on these grounds also. The learned counsel also had taken me through the oral evidence in general and the evidence of P. W. 1 in particular and had pointed out that certain clear admissions were made and though these aspects were elaborately argued the Tribunals below had not attached much importance. The learned Counsel also pointed out that P.W. 1 stated in his evidence: ".......It is true that the entire extent is poramboke......."