E R BADIRI NARAYANA Vs. K NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the legal representative of the original defendant in O.S.No. 114 of 1991 against the reversing Judgment and decree dated 18-07-1994 in A.S.No. 3 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kumool. The Civil Revision Petition No. 711 of'1989 has been preferred by the decree-holder in R.C.C.No. 31 of 1982 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool, against the order passed in E.A.No. 407 of 1987 in E.P.No. 291 of 1987 dated 29-10-1987.

(2.) As the parties in both the proceedings are common and the issue involvedin both matters is common, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(3.) The facts giving rise for this appeal and the Civil Revision Petition areas follows : (i) R. Sheshamma (since deceased) was the owner of the building bearing Door Number 66/134 situated within the municipal limits of Kurnool town. The said building comprises into three portions having separate door numbers. The portion bearing Door Number 66/134-A was let out to K. Nagappa, the respondent herein long back on a monthly tenancy. He has been carrying on his business as a medical practitioner in Ayurvedic medicine. The other two portions bearing numbers 66/134-B and 66/134-C have alsb been let out to other tenants. The landlady-Sheshamma filed an Eviction Petition R.C.C. No. 31 of 1982 against the tenant-Nagappa for eviction on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rent from 01-05-1981. The tenant denied the tenancy of Sheshamma and set up the plea that he was inducted into possession by one Shiva Kumar. Thereupon, Sheshamma added the said Shiva Kumar as second respondent in that Eviction Petition. (ii) While that matter was pending, the parties entered into a compromise and a compromise decree was passed on 03-10-1985. The tenant-Nagappa, under the said compromise decree, undertook to vacate the premises within a period of six months therefrom. Instead of vacating the premises as agreed upon under the compromise decree, the tenant-Nagappa filed E.A.No. 67 of 1986 for declaration that the compromise decree was invalid and inexecutable on the ground that it was recorded by Court without recording a finding for eviction. The Rent Control Court allowed E.A.No. 67 of 1986 and the landlady-Sheshamma preferred revision against the said Order to this Court in C.R.P. No. 1823 of 1986 and the same was allowed. Thereupon, the landlady-Sheshamma filed E.P.No. 291 of 1987 for execution of the compromise decree for eviction. The tenant-filed E.A.No. 407 of 1987 for declaration that the compromise decree was inexecutable as it was obtained by playing fraud on the Court. The Rent Controller allowed that petition on 29-10-1987. As against that Order, the landlady-Sheshamma preferred the revision to this Court in C.R..P.NO. 711 of 1989. Subsequent to the death of the revision petitioner-Sheshamma, her legal representatives have been brought on record as revision petitioners 2 and 3. (iii) The tenant-Nagappa after disposal of E.A.No. 407 of 1987 by the Rent Controller filed the suit O.S.No. 114 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kurnool, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,020/- which includes the rent of Rs. 4,800/- paid by him to the landlady-Sheshamma for the period from 29-09-1985 to 10-07-1987 and interest thereon alleging that the landlady- Sheshamma who is the owner of the suit house lost title to the property by virtue of the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by notification dated 27-01-1977 for acquisition of the suit house for expansion of the market area in Kurnool town; that an award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 21-03-1979 and compensation has been paid to the landlady-Sheshamma and the possession has been acquired by the Government for Kurnool Municipality. It is also pleaded in the suit that by suprressing all these factors and having lost title to the suit property by virtue of the acquisition by the Government, the landlady obtained eviction order in R.C.C.No. 31 of 1982 by playing fraud on the Court; that the landlady seized to be the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the rent to the landlady and that she has received the said rent illegally from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said rent paid by him together with interest thereon. (iv) The defendant-landlady resisted that suit and filed her written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. She admits the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the suit house and also passing of the Award. It is her positive case that the entire compensation together with interest has not been paid to her; that the possession was not taken over either by the Government or by the Municipality; that the Municipality has been demanding her to pay the house tax to the suit house and that she paid the house tax as per the demand; that she is not divested of her title to the suit house as actual physical possession was not taken over and that the relationship of landlady and tenant is still subsisting and the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent as long as the tenancy subsists; that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount which has been paid to the defendant towards the rent; that there was no demand on the plaintiff either by the Government or by the Municipality for payment of rent and as such the plaintiff cannot avoid the payment of rent to the original owner; and that the suit has been filed mala fide to continue to enjoy the suit property without payment of rent to anybody and that the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. (v) The trial Court based on the pleadings settled the relevant issues for trial. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A-l to A-23. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B-l to B-12 were marked. The defendant got herself examined as D.W. 1 and her grandson-Badrinarayana who is now the appellant herein was examined as D.W. 2. (vi) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placedbefore him, the learned trial Judge held that the possession of the suit house continued to be with the defendant even after the passing Award in land acquisition proceedings; that the relationship of landlady and tenant is not snapped between the defendant and the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff is bound to pay the rent to the defendant till the relationship of landlady and tenant between them is put to an end; that the rent paid to the defendant is not illegal and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount. Accordingly the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs. (vii) Aggrieved of the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the appeal A.S.No. 3 of 1992. During the pendency of that appeal, the landlady-defendant died and her grandson was added as second respondent in that appeal. On reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned lower appellate Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the defendant ceased to be the owner of the suit house on account of the land acquisition proceedings and as such the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties came to an end and as the defendant received the compensation amount awarded to the suit house, she is not entitled to collect the rent from the plaintiff-tenant and as such she is liable to refund the suit amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs and with subsequent interest at six percent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation against the estate of the deceased-first respondent in the hands of the second respondent. (viii) As against that Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, this appeal has been preferred by the legal representative of the deceased-defendant landlady.