N RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. VASANTA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs are, the appellants. They laid the suit for declaration of title, possession of the plaint schedule house and for mesne profits. They are the heirs of N. Gurubheem Rao and his wife Smt. N. Krishna Bai. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court while confirming the decree that the appellants acquired title as legal representatives of Gurubheem Rao and Krishna Bai, reversed the decree for possession on the ground that the appellants had to see ejectment of the respondent under the provisions of the A P Buildings (Lease. Rentand Eviction) Control Act XV of 1960 (for short 'the Act')- Dissatisfied with the reversal by the appellate court the present appeal has been filed. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are the agnates of Gurubheem Rao and Krishna Bai. Gurubheem Rao died on December 5, 1956 and his widow Krishna Bai succeeded him as the sole heir, She also died issuless on September 12, 1968. Thereafter the. appellants claimed to be the legal representatives to Krishna Bai and Gurubheem Rao. The respondent was living in the suit house bearing No. 4-2-319 Motislngh Lane, Sulthan Bazaar. He was paying rent of Rs. 30/- per mensum during her lifetime. After her demise, the appellants claimed the rent, recognizing them as legal representatives in the suit notice issued. Under Ex. A-5 the respondent set up title in himself as a legate under Krishna Bai under oral gift and he claimed that he is the owner. The suit was decreed. Both the courts have concurrently found as a fact that the appellants are the legal representatives of Gurubheem Rao and his widow Krishna Bai and they succeeded to the plaint scheduled property as heirs. That finding is not in dispute The only area of dispute is with regard to the right to get the respondent ejected from the suit house. -

(2.) Sri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that under Ext. A-5 and also in the written statement, the respondent has specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant even with Krishna. Bai. He also set up title in himself. Therefore, the rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in the face of the hostile titles set up by the respondent. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. Admittedly there is no pre-existing relationship of the appellants and the respondent as Landlords and tenant. The disputes arose only after the demise of Krishna Bai, the previous owner. The respondent claimed that there was an oral gift made by Krishna Bai in his favour during her life time and that he was continuing in his own right as owner and thereby he set up the title in himself. It is not the case that there was an earlier admision of the respondent of the title of the plaint-schedule property in the appellants. No doubt the reliefs of declaration of title, possession and mesne profits were claimed for. Admittedly Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to grant declaration of title. For ejectment. Sec. 10 of the Act postulates that no tenant shall be ejected from a house, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, for ejectment of a tenant in possession of a house, the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred in the Rent Controller, thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly ousted. It is not in dispute that the rentals are Rs. 30-00 per mensum. If that is so, the appropriate forum before which the relief for possession could be agitated for is under the Act and that too on satisfying any of the grounds mentioned under Sec. 10 of the Act. On mere declaration of title, the appellants cannot automatically get a decree for possession. The decree for possession in this case is independent of the declaration of the title. The declaration of title is also an independent relief. The relief of possession in some cases may be incidental to the grant of the relief of declaration of title. But when there is an express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by operation of Sec. 10 of the Act, that provision cannot be circumvented by a mere camouflage relief of declaration of title. Therefore, the appellate court has rightly held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant decree for possession. In Narsing Rao V Parvathi Bai (1) 1978(1) AnWR 127, Laxmaiah J has held, that unless there is finding recorded by the Rent Contrpller in the proceedings initiated thereat that the denial of title is bona-fide, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Proviso to Sec. 10 (1) of the Act postulates that there must be a relationship of landlord and tenant, there must be a denial of that relationship or of title of the landlord and that denial is bona fide and the Rent Controller has to record these findings. On recording such findings only, the Civil Court gets jurisdiction to grant a decree not only of declaration of title, but also consequential decree for possession. In this case such is not the situation. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error of law committed by the appellate Court.

(3.) Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.