MURALI KRISHNA V Vs. SERVEL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. under Sec. 22 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent-and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed by the landlord of a building bearing No. 1-2-333/B situate atGagan Mahal Road, Hyderabad. The original owner of the building was one V.S. Ganapathiram who is the father-in- law of the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent in his capacity as proprietor of M/sServel Traders (1st respondent) took the building onlease on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- on 26-4-1974. Alleging that there was default in payment of rent and on certain other grounds which it is not necessary to refer to, Sri Ganapathiram filed an eviction petition under Sec. 10 of the Act which was numbered as R.C.No. 408/85. The filing of this Rent Control case was preceded by two suits filed by Sri Ganapathiram for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The suits were dismissed so far as the relief of possession was concerned. Thereafter, the present Rent Case was filed. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord' filed I.A.1617/85 under Sec. 11 of the Act praying the Rent Controller to direct the respondent-tenant to pay a sum of Rs.62,192/- towards arrears of rent and till then not to permit the tenant to contest the eviction petition. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. After the dismissal of the Said I. A., the landlord Sri Ganapathiram died on 15-7-1988. The petitioner herein who is the son of late Ganapathiram came on record as his legal representative claiming .exclusive right over the building under a registered will executed by his father. Against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application under Sec. 11, the petitioner herein filed an appeal - R. A.No. 357/88. During the pendency of the appeal, the 3rd respondent herein who is the daughter of Sri Ganapathiram and the wife of the 2nd respondent and one Sri V. Aditya the second son of la te Ganapathiram were brought on record as respondents 3 and 4. It may be noted here that Sri. Aditya did not put forward any claim over the demised property. The Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) by an order dated 21-3-1990 set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller directing him to enquire into and dispose of the main eviction petition itself. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision in C.R.P. No. 2077/90. This Court by an order dated 26-6-1991, allowed the C.R.F. on the short ground that the Appellate Authority shouldnothaveremanded the matter in view of an earlier decision of this Court and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority who was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Thereafter, evidence-both oral and documentary, was allowed to be adduced by the appellate authority. The petitioner who was examined as P. W. 1 before the Rent Controller was recalled and cross-examined. Respondent No. 2 (tenant) and Respondent No. 3 (tenant's wife) were also examined as R.Ws 2 and 3. In the counter filed in reply to Sec. 11 application, the 2nd respondent took the stand that the Civil suits filed by the landlord for arrears of rent and mesne profits were pending and therefore the application was not maintainable. Another and more important point of defence taken was that there was a settlement between the petitioner's father and 3rd respondent (wife of tenant) at the instance of common friends and pursuant to that settlement, the 3rd respondent has a vested right to the suit property apart from his own rights in law.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings, the following point was framed for consideration by the Appellate Authority : Whether the denial of title of the petitioner for the demised premises by respondents 1 to 3 is bona fide; If so, whether LA. 1617/85 is liable to be dismissed ? On a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence and the probabilities, the Appellate Authority in his order dated 2-2-1993 answered the above points in the negative. He held that R.Ws 1 and 2 could not even make out a prima facie case about the existence of family settlement and the plea itself was a belated one. It was also held that there were no bona fides on the part of R. Ws 1 and 2 (Respondents 2 and 3 herein) in denying title of the landlord. The appeal was therefore allowed and the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent uptodate after giving credit to payments, if any, made by him, within 15 days failing which it was stated that the order under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act would follow.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 3 filed a revision against this order in C.R.P.No. 735 /93. This Court by its judgment dated 12-4-93 dismissed the C.R.P. and granted fifteen days' time to the revision petitioners to comply with the directions as to deposit of rent failing which it was directed that an order under Sec. 11 (4) shall follow. This Court negatived the contention of the revision petitioners that what was conducted by the appellate court was only a summary enquiry and that due opportunity was not given to the petitioner herein to substantiate the plea of family settlement. This Court further held that "the Appellate Judge is perfectly correct in coming to the conclusion that the denial of title by the revision petitioners herein is not bom fide". It was also held that the Appellate Authority was well justified in directing the deposit of arrears of rent. Thereafter, the matter was carried in S.L.P. to the Supreme Court. While dismissing the S.L.P., the Supreme Court directed the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in the Court of the Rent Controller on or before 5th July, 1993 failing which, it was directed, that the order under Sec. 11 (4) should follow. It appeas that the tenant has deposited the said sum.