D RATNAM SETTY Vs. SAMUDRALA NARAYANA SETTY DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for consequential possession of the same and for arrears of rent. Pending the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives i.e., wife and son were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3. The second plaintiff and the wife of the defendant are sisters. The defendant had taken the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- payable on or before 1st of the succeeding month and he had also executed in that regard a rent-note. As the defendant refused to pay the rent, the plaintiff with a view to approach a lawyer searched for the rent-note and the sale deed of the house but they were found missing. The plaintiff suspected D.V. Chalapathi, son of the defendant, to have secretly taken away the documents from his house. The boy was handling the business, cash and almirah of the plaintiff. The defendant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from the inception of the tenancy. As the 1st plaintiff's condition of health was deteriorating he wanted to take treatment in the Government Hospital, Kurnool, and therefore wanted the defendant to vacate. However, the defendant was not vacating the suit house and, therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice on 1-1-1979 demanding. arrears of rent and vacant possession of the building. The defendant gave a reply on 19-1-1979 denying the title of the plaintiff to the suit building and setting up title in himself. Hence the suit.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and stating that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit building nor he was a tenant and the purchase of the building in his name is only benami. The defendant also emphatically denied the execution of the rent note. On the other hand, the defendant claimed absolute ownership to the plaint schedule property by stating that in his own right he was in possession of the same since 22 years and was also paying municipal taxes. He further stated that never there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant purchased the suit house on 11-11-1957 in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 15-9-1957 for a consideration of Rs. 2, 500/- from one Gajjala Subramanyam and got into the possession of the same. It is denied that the defendant's son, D.V, Chalapathi, has taken the documents. It is also denied that the plaintiff educated the defendant's son. He also denied the will alleged to have been executed in favour of the second plaintiff.

(3.) The trial court after framing the relevant issues and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit. Against that judgment and decree the defendant filed an appeal and the lower appellate court after a reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence disbelieved the plea of benami and found that the plaintiff has proved the title and also the relationship of landlord and tenant. It accordingly confirmed the judgment of the trial court to the extent of declaration of title and refused the relief of possession on the ground that it is to be sought from under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh' Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Aggrieved by that judgment and decree the defendant filed the present second appeal.