POLIAETTY RAMAIAH SETTY Vs. SANKHVARAM NARASIMHA CHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, a question whether a tenant even after the order of eviction was passed can continue to be tenant merely because he was not evicted from the premises in execution of the order of eviction arises for consideration.

(2.) The respondent was the tenant of one Kakarla Venkatramanappa from whom the premises in the occupation of the respondent was purchased by one Polisetti Ramayya Setty under a registered sale deed dated 20-10-1957 and the respondent-tenant attorned to Polisetti Ramayya Setty agreeing to continue as his tenant and to pay'the rent at the same rate which he was paying to Kakarla Venkataramanappa, the original landlord, and as he failed to pay the rent also as he wanted the house for his personal occupation, Ramayya Setty filed H.R.C.No. 12/1958 before the Rent Controller, Madanapalli. He also filed a petition requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rents during the pendency of the H.R.C. proceedings. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the arrears. But the tenant failed to do so. Finally the learned Rent Controller passed eviction orders on 16-4-1960. The tenant preferred appeal before the appellate Authority and also a revision in the High Court. But his appeal as well as revision were dismissed. Not being satisfied with the decision of the High Court, the tenant filed a suit O.S.No. 464/1964 in the District MuDsif s Court, Madanapalli for setting aside the order in H.R.C. 12/ 1958 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and obtained temporary injunction and stay of execution of the orders in H.R.C.No. 12/1958. The suit O.S.No. 464/1964 was finally dismissed on 22-2-1968. Since the Ramaiah Settey vs. S. Narasimha Charyulu. (Punnayya, J.) 323 tenant has not vacated the premises even after the dismissal of his revision petition by the High Court and even after the suit filed by him was dismissed and since he has been in the occupation of the premises Ramayya Setty treated his occupation as wrongful and illegal and filed the suit 0 S.No. 194/1968 for recovery of damages for the period from April. 1965 to March, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 30/-per month for use and occupation of the house and he did not choose to claim the arrears from 1961 to 1963 which has been barred by time.

(3.) Resisting the suit the tenant contended that since he was not evicted from the premises, he should be deemed to be continued as tenant and his possession being not unlawful or wrongful, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages from him and the plaint iff landlord is entitled only to recover from him the usual, rent at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month.