CHERUKURI SESHADRI Vs. VEERAMALLU KOTESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cherukuri Seshadri, the tenant-the 1st respondent in R.C.C.No.1/91 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District munsiff, Bapatla, filed C.R.P.No.3695/97, as against the order made in R.C.A.No.2/93 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge-cum- Appellate Authority at Bapatla, whereunder eviction was ordered on the ground of mala fide denial of title though the other grounds had been negatived even by the Appellate Authority. Landlord, the petitioner in R.C.C.No.1/91, being aggrieved of negativing the reliefs on other grounds under Sections 10 and 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein-in-after, in short, referred to as the Act' forthe purpose of convenience), preferred C.R.P.No.4257/97. The 2nd respondent in R.C'.C.No.1/91, Podaraju Venkatappayya Sarma, and also Veeramallu Koteshwar Rao, being no more, the legal representatives were brought on record in C.R.P.No.3695/97 and R.C.A.No.2/93 on the file of Appellate Authority, respectively, in relation to Veeramallu Koteswara Rao and Bodaraju Venkatappayya Sarma.

(2.) The facts in brief are as hereunder:- Veeramallu Koteswar Rao, the landlord, filed R.C.C.No.1/91 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsiff, Bapatla, praying for eviction of Cherukuri Seshadri-R-1. in the said R.C.C., under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. The case of the landlord in nutshell is that the petition schedule house originally belonging to B'odaraju Venkatappayya Sarma, the 2nd respondent in R.C.C.No.1/91, shown as R-2 in R.C.A.No.2/93, who died pending appeal and respondents 3 to 5 therein were added as legal representatives in I.A.No.140/95, let- out the entire house to the landlord and with his consent and knowledge, the landlord had let-out the northern half portion to the tenant Cherukuri Seshadri (forthe purpose of convenience referred to as 'tenant') and Veeramallu Koteswar Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') had been occupying the southern half and let-out the northern half to the said tenant. Thus, the landlord alone had been collecting the rents, since the owner was employed elsewhere and living at a place other than Bapatla. It is also the case of the landlord that he entered into a contract of sale for the entire house for a consideration of Rs.26,000/- and a duly stamped agreement was executed on 2-5-1982 and the entire consideration was paid to the owner. While so, when the sale deed was about to be taken, the tenant filed O.S.No.44/82 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, for the relief of specific performance of an alleged contract of sale between him and the original owner and the landlord herein got himself impleaded in the said suit and the suit was dismissed and the matter was carried by way of Appeal A.S.No.90/88 on the file of District Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed and by the date of filing of the R.C.C., Second Appeal No.386/90 was pending on the file of this Court. But however, at present, the same also is not pending and the Second Appeal had been dismissed. It is also stated that R.C.C.No.7/82 was filed by the tenant as against the original owner only for deposit or rents, but however, it was pleaded therein that he used to pay rents to the landlord, as nominee of the original owner. The pleadings in O.S.No.44/82 also had been referred to and it is stated that it is not known whether the tenant is depositing the rents into Court in R.C.C.No.7/82. Specific stand was taken that inasmuch as the landlord had been receiving rents to the knowledge of the tenant and with the express consent of the original owner, he would fall within the definition of the landlord under the Act and there is deliberate denial of title of the landlord though the tenant has knowledge about the payment of rents to the landlord and subsequent thereto, the agreement of sale being executed in his favour. The grounds of wilful default, bona fide personal accommodation and requirement for alterations by reconstruction also had been pleaded. The tenant-lst respondent in the aforesaid R.C.C. denied the allegations and further pleaded, as hereunder- "The tenant is a contractor and the petitioner is a school teacher. It was not convenient to the tenant to send the rent for himself. Hence, the tenant used to entrust his rent to the petitioner to send it to the 2nd respondent along with Money Order charges. Therefore, it is false to allege that the petitioner sublet the northern portion to the tenant and he used to collect the rents etc. The tenant and the petitioner are very amicable and friendly with each other for some time. The petitioner encouraged the tenant to purchase the schedule house. Hence, the tenant entered into an agreement to purchase the schedule house from the 2nd respondent for Rs.25,000/- and paid the advance to the 2nd respondent and this has taken place to the knowledge of the petitioner himself. The 2nd respondent entered into the said agreement to sell the petition schedule house on 22-4-1981. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent came to Bapatla on the request of the tenant to complete the sale transaction. At that time, it was transpired that one woman was occupying a portion of the schedule site and the tenant requested the 2nd respondent having admitted the encroachment of the said woman, refused to get her vacated and the 2nd respondent picked up quarrel and went away without completing the sale transaction even through the tenant is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This happened to the knowledge of the petitioner. The tenant continued his correspondence with the 2nd respondent and got issued a registered notice also through his lawyer etc., to the knowledge of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, there were misunderstanding between the tenant's family towards the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the tenant was compelled to file the suit O.S.No.44/82 on the file of Sub Court, Bapatla. Hence, it is preposterous and absurd to state that the petitioner entered into a contract of sale with the 2nd respondent to purchase the schedule house. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent has conspired and colluded to cause loss to the tenant. It is false to state that the petitioner purchased the house and paid the consideration and obtained a contract of sale. The said contract of sale is ante-dated and no consideration was paid. The petitioner has no capacity to purchase the said house. The alleged contract was brought into existence only to defeat the right of the tenant. The tenant filed a petition in R.C.C.No.7/82 to permit him to deposit the rent into Court and the same was allowed. The petitioner filed a petition in the said case to implead him as a party but it was dismissed. The tenant ever since the date of the said petition has been depositing the rent regularly into that case. The petitioner is fully aware of the same. It is quite absurd to alleged that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. This allegation was trotted out forthe purpose of filing this petition. The petitioner's allegation that he is the landlord to the tenant is most mischievous, false and absurd. Really and factually speaking, the tenant is the landlord of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus stand to file this petition and hence, liable to be dismissed in limini. The petitioner has successfully took the law into his hands and engaged unruly elements to highhandedly dispossess the tenant's, son and attempting to murder him etc., and in that connection, there are criminal cases pending against the petitioner." The original owner, shown as 2nd respondent in the aforesaid R.C.C., filed a counter virtually supporting the stand taken by thelandlord. The original owner Bodaraju Venkatappayya Sarma spefically admitted expressly authorising the landlord to receive the rents and also the agreement of sale in his favour and the receipt of consideration. Inasmuch as, the original owner had supported the stand taken by the landlord in toto, the averments in the counter need not be referred to in detail.

(3.) The landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and further examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and examined R.W.2, R.W.3 and R.W.4. Exs.A-1 to A-15 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.