AMMANNACHARY Vs. RAHIMA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing door Nos, 8-4-45 and 8-4-47 in the llth Ward in Petitioner. Srikakulam town. The two premises belong to one Abdulla Khan. He has two sons and one daughter viz, Babu Khan, Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon. These two premises were leased out by Abdulla Khan to the petitioners herein. Abdulla Khan has been collecting rents from the petitiners from the beginning even by the date of the petitioners. Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon claimed that Abdulla Khan executed registered settlement deeds Exs. A-1, date 6-4-1975 In favour of Rahima Khatoon and Ex. A-11, date 6-4-1975 in favour of Hyder Khan and hence they are the owners of the two premises and consequently they become the landlords in respect of the two premises. They, therefore, issued lawyer notices Exs. A-6 and A-16 date 21-12-1977 to the petitioners informing them that they become the title holders under the settlement deeds Exs. A-1 and A-11 and consequently they became the landlords in respect of the two premises in the occupation of the petitioners and they should, therefore, pay rents to them but not to their father, Abdulla Khan. The copies of Exs. A-6 and A-16 were also sent to Abdulla Khan by Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon. Abdulla Khan gave replies Exs. B-2 and B-5, dated 9-1-1978 stating that the did not execute the alleged settlement deeds and even if such deeds were executed, there are not acted upen and has been in possession and enjoyment of the two premises in respect of which the settlement deed were executed and has been collecting the rents from the tenants all through, and since he did not cease to be the landlord in respect of the two premises, the petitioners are still his tenants and they are, therefore, rightly paying the rents to him. On receipt of Exs. B-2 and B-5 Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon filed petitions R.C.C. Nos.2 and 1 of 1980 before the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Narasaraopet for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default. The tenants resisted the eviction petitions denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon. But they contend that one Bahadur Khan inducted them into possession of the premises Nos. 8-4-45 and 8-4-47. They also contended th it they were orginally paying a rent of Rs. 60/- to Bahadur Khan and subsequently the rent was enhanced. They further contended that Bahadur Khan constructed the entire building including the two premises in question which are under their occupation.

(2.) The Rent Controller, took the view that there is no relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties and the denial of tide made by the tenants is bona fide and hence the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to dispose of the eviction petitions and he advised the petitioners, who filed the eviction petitions, toipursue their remedy by way of filing a civil suit in a Civil Court and so holding, he dismissed the petitions.

(3.) Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon having been aggrieved with the decision of the Rent Controller in RCC Nos. 1 and 2 of 1980 preferred appeals before the Subordinate Judge, Srikaku'am, who is the appellate authority under the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge did not agree with the view taken by the Rent Controller. He took the view that the settlement deeds Exs. A-1 and A-11 ,on which Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon relied for their title were acted upon by Abdulla Khan and Abdulla Khan ceased to be the owner and ceased to have any right or interest in the two premises after the execution of Exs. A-1 and A-11 and hence there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He, therefore, held that the eviction petitions are maintainable and the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain and to dispose of them. He, therefore, remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for a decision on the question whether the tenants committed wilful default since the Rent Controller did not give any such finding in his orders. Aggrieved with the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, who is the appellate authority, the tenants preferred these revisions.