RAVI VENKATRAVAMMA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the husband of the revision petitioner from its property leased out to him under the provisions of A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act). That petition was allowed after contest. Thereafter, husband of the revision petitioner died. So, first respondent filed an execution petition for enforcement of the order of eviction against the revision petitioner in her capacity as the legal representative of her husband. She opposed that petition inter alia on the ground of limitation and on the ground that a relationship of tenant and landlord is created between her and the respondent due to the first respondent receiving rents from her. Overruling the objections raised by her, the Special Officer ordered delivery of the demised property to the respondent by the order under revision. Hence this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that after the Special Officer passed the order of eviction, first respondent received the entire arrears of rent due from the demised property from the revision petitioner without any protest, and so it should be deemed that it waived the right to seek the eviction of the revision petitioner in view of the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in Adapa Abbayi Vs. Reddipantulu Choultry and othersAIR 1974 AP 139.

(3.) The decision relied on by the learned counsel has no application to the facts of this case. In that case the full bench was considering the question whether a landlord who received the arrears before filing of a petition for eviction can seek eviction of his tenant on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. In this case the Special Officer already passed an order of eviction against the husband of the revision petitioner. In view of the language employed in Section 13 of the Act as soon as an order of eviction is passed against a tenant on the petition filed by the landlord seeking eviction, the relationship of landlord and tenant between them ceases. If a landlord seeks eviction of his tenant under the Act on the ground of arrears the liability of the tenant to pay arrears and the rent during the pendency of the proceedings would not cease. It is not as though the landlord has to choose between seeking eviction of his tenant and claiming arrears. Till such time as the Special Officer orders eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears, the amount payable by the tenant to the landlord would be rent, thereafter it would be damages for use and occupation. So if the first respondent received the amount due from the revision petitioner, as the heir of her husband, such payment would not create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the first respondent and the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner who stepped into the shoes of her husband after his death is bound by the order of eviction passed against her husband.