S SARVAIAH Vs. PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment in R.A.No. 168 of 1980 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 1-8-1991 is assailed in this Revision Petition by the landlord. The Rent Controller allowed R.C. No. 93/80 on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 18-12-1978 to 17-3-1980 and the learned Chief Judge while confirming the finding regarding wilful default in payment of rent reversed the order on the ground that the landlord is not the sole owner and a co-sharer cannot maintain the eviction petition against another co-sharer. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) It is noteworthy that in the counter filed by the tenant a ground is raised that the premises originally belonged to Easwaraiah, who died intestate in the year 1964 leaving behind his widow, three sons, one of them being revision petitioner herein and four daughters one of them being Respondent No.l and that the remaining heirs of late Easwaraiah have not authorised the revision petitioner to file the eviction petition. The Revision petitioner was examined as PW.l and it has been elicited in the cross-examination that Easwaraiah died intestate leaving behind the aforesaid Class-I heirs. Yet, the learned Rent Controller took the view that it is not only the owners of the building, but the person who is receiving or entitled to receive the rent of the premises that is a landlord and hence the eviction petition is maintainable. When this ground was canvassed before the learned Chief Judge, it is held that having regard to the relationship between the landlord and the legal representatives of the tenant and the widow's claim that she was a sharer in the property there is no justification to direct eviction of the legal representatives. In this revision petition, Sri K. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has strenuously contended that an eviction petition is very well maintainable even without the other co-sharers. Sri Janardhana Rao on the other hand contended that in view of a Division Dench judgment of this Court in Daniodaram Chetti vs. Rukmaniamma, and a judgment of a learned single Judge in Vasantrao Ankilkar vs. Nalini Bai Joshi, the eviction petition is not maintainable. He also pointed out that ground No. 3 of the Revision petition is itself clear that the matter requires further elucidation.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the premises originally belonged to late Easwaraiah and he died intestate in the year 1964 leaving behind his widow, three sons and four daughters. Evidently, they are all class-I heirs and are entitled to a share in the premises. It is no doubt true that the revision petitioner has been collecting rents and he falls within the definition of landlord under Section 2 (vi) of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short, 'the Act'). The Rent Controller has held that the eviction petition is maintainable under the premise that the revision petitioner is entitled to file the eviction petition as he fulfills the definition of landlord under Section 2(vi) of the Act and hence he did not go into the question that was raised before him regarding maintainability in its proper perspective. This was again raised before the learned Chief Judge and he too did not deal with the question in its depth.