T.S. PRAKASH Vs. XAVIER EMMANUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the petitioner. The lower Court ordered eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rents for three months, viz., July, 1987 to September, 1987 and also on the ground that first respondent/landlord bonafide requires the petition schedule premises for his personal occupation. Second respondent herein, who is the co-owner of the petition schedule premises along with the first respondent-herein, got herself impleaded as a party-petitioner in the eviction petition. She filed a petition in the lower Court, stating that she has not instructed the first respondent-herein to file the eviction petition and the first respondent, being only a sharer of the property, cannot evict the petitioner, from the petition schedule premises-the tenant. The second respondent-herein had already filed a suit, O.S. No. 635 of 1985 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule property and for separate possession of her share and that suit is pending.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner/tenant has raised two points. Firstly, he submits that the first respondent-herein is not the exclusive owner of the petition schedule property and as there are other persons also who have got shares in the petition schedule property, the eviction petition, filed by the first respondent without reference to the other co-owners/sharers, is not maintainable. Secondly, he submits that the eviction petition filed by the first respondent-herein, without obtaining the permission of the other co- owners/sharers of the property, as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the Act"), is not maintainable.

(3.) SECTION 2(vi) of the Act defines the term "landlord" thus : "Landlord' means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant..." A reading of the above definition of the term "landlord", discloses that the person who is authorised to receive the rents is also a 'landlord', within the meaning of the Act. Petitioner/tenant has been paying the rents regularly to the first respondent-herein. Ex. P-8 discloses that the first respondent- herein has been appointed as the Executor of the Will. First respondent- herein, in his evidence before the Rent Controller, has categorically stated that he is administering the estate of his late father, on his behalf and on behalf of his co-owners. Exs. P-9 to P-24, receipts passed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, establish that the 2nd respondent has been receiving her share of rents from the first respondent. Further, the definition of the term "landlord" contained in Section 2(vi) of the Act, also includes the 'executor of a Will'. Admittedly, the first respondent- herein is the 'executor' under the Will of his father, which had already been probated. Notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd respondent-herein has not supported the case of the first respondent-herein for filing the petition for eviction, under law, as per the definition of the term 'landlord' as per Section 2(vi) of the Act, the first respondent is a 'landlord' within the meaning of the Act, for all purposes and he is entitled to maintain the petition for eviction against the petitioner-herein/tenant. The fact that the petitioner-herein himself has been paying the monthly rents to the first respondent-herein only, itself discloses that the petitioner/tenant has recognised the first respondent-herein as the 'landlord'.