Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Ramachandraiah And Anr. vs C. Jagadeeswarachari on 2 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(5)ALT419
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Laxminarayana Reddy representing the revision petitioners and Sri Rajasekhar representing the respondents.
2. C.R.P.2962 of 1987 is filed by the revision petitioners being aggrieved by the order impugned in R.A.No. 59 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 7-7-197. The said R.A 59 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner one Sri Venkatesham in R.C.No. 248 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The said Venkatesham died during the pendency of the appeal and C. Jagadeswara Chary was brought on record for the purpose of further prosecuting the litigation. The landlord filed R.C.No. 248 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting, securing the alternative accommodation and also bona fide requirements. But however, the ground of bona fide requirement was given up. The evidence was let in by both the parties before the Rent Controller. Landlord was examined as Pw-1. 1st revision petitioner in the C.R.P. was examined as Rw-2 and 2nd revision petitioner was examined as Rw-1. Apart from it, one Jagadamba was examined as Rw-3. Ex.P1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.R1 to R21 and Ex.X1 were marked. In fact, originally, Ramachandraiah son of Varadaiah alone was impleaded as a party and C.Krishna son-in-law of said Varadaiah filed an application I.A.No. 388 of 1988 to implead himself as a party and the said application was allowed on 13-7-1989. The Court of first instance dismissed the eviction petition in RC No. 248 of 1986 on the ground that the 2nd respondent, who was brought on record, is not liable to be evicted as no relief is sought against him in the eviction petition and aggrieved by the same, the land lord had preferred R.A.No. 59 of 1994 wherein it was held that the ground of wilful default is established and consequently the appeal was allowed and aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 was preferred by both Ramachandraiah and Krishna, son-in-law of late Varadaiah. The said C. Krishna filed RC No. 197 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') seeking permission to deposit the rents. On behalf of the respective parties, Ex.P1 to P14 and Ex.R1 are marked and learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad had dismissed RC 197 of 199 by order dated 7-8-1983. Aggrieved by the same, the said C. Krishna had preferred R.A.No. 448 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed by order dated 7-7-1997 and aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No. 4658 of 1997 was filed by the said C. Krishna and likewise both the above C.R.Ps came up for final hearing before this Court and in view of the fact that both the C.R.Ps are closely connected, both the matters are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Sri Laxminarayana Reddy representing the petitioners had contended that the 2nd revision petitioner in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 is the tenant falling under the definition of tenant under Section 2 (ix) of the Act. Learned counsel also had contended that in fact the 2nd petitioner was a member of the composite family of Varadaiah and as such he is entitled to continue as statutory tenant under the Act. Learned counsel also had placed reliance on decisions in the case of R. Ramanujam v. D. Venkat Rao and also in the case of Vijay Kumar (dead) through LRs [2000 (1) RCJ 155 ] and placed strong reliance on the said decisions. Learned counsel had contended that 2nd revision petitioner C. Krishna definitely falls under the definition of the tenant under the Act and hence the appellate authority deciding the matter as though Ramachandraiah alone can be treated as a tenant after the death of his father Varadaiah is totally unsustainable. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the order of the appellate authority and had contended that the findings recorded by the appellate authority are not sustainable in law. Learned counsel also had contended that in facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the ground of wilful default had been established by the landlord. Learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on a decision in the case of Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas and had contended that since the landlord accepted accumulated rents without any objection, the eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rents is not permissible. Learned counsel had made certain submissions about the report of the Commissioner in C.M.P.No 5228 of 2000 in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to several objections filed to the report of the Commissioner. Learned counsel had pointed out that as far as C.R.P.No. 4658 of 1997 is concerned, the Courts below had totally erred in refusing the request of C. Krishna seeking permission to deposit the rents. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to both the oral and documentary evidence available on record.
4. Sri Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing the respondents in the C.R.Ps had vehemently contended that as far as the ground of wilful default is concerned, virtually it is a concurrent finding but the learned Rent Controller had negatived the relief only on a technical ground that no relief was prayed for by making suitable amendments as against impleaded party i.e., 2nd respondent in R.C.No. 248 of 1986. Learned counsel further contended that as far as jural relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, it is between Venkatesham, the original landlord, father of Jagadeshwara Chari and Varadaiah father of Ramachandraiah and subsequent to the death of Varadaiah between the said Venkatesham and Ramachandraiah. Learned counsel strenuously contended that the son-in-law of Varadaiah C. Krishna who came on record by filing an application to implead himself as a party is no way concerned with the demised premises. Learned counsel also had pointed out that merely because C.Krishna says that he is concerned with the demised premises by virtue of death of his father-in-law , the landlord Venkatesham was under no legal obligation to receive the rents for the said C. Krishna and hence the appellate authority had appreciated the matter in proper perspective. Learned counsel had further submitted that the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It was further contended that as far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, in R.C.No. 197 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad and R.A.No. 448 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, concurrent findings had been recorded that C. Krishna cannot be permitted to deposit the rents and in the light of concurrent findings relating to the facts also the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the report of the Commissioner appointed in C.M.P.No. 5228 of 2000 in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 and had submitted that the revision petitioners are fighting this litigation only with a vindictive nature though the premises virtually had collapsed and even it is not habitable.
5. Heard both the counsel at length and also perused the material available on record.
6. For the purpose of this litigation, the facts in nutshell are as follows;
The original landlord one Venkatesham father of Jagadeshwara Chari filed RC 248 of 1986 for the relief of eviction specifically taking a stand that one Varadaiah, the father of M.Ramachandraiah, the first petitioner in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 had taken the petition schedule premises and he died in the year 1980 and his son, referred to supra, was residing in the premises and paying the rents and the landlord used to make entry in separate note books and the said Ramachandraiah paid Rs. 2160/- on 1-1-1984 towards the arrears of rents from 1.1.1980 to 1-1-1984 and Rs. 945/- on 22-9-1984 for the period from 1-1-1984 to 1-9-1985 and the rents are to be paid to the petition schedule premises from 1-9-1985 to 31-7-1986. Landlord also had stated that his elder son is a school teacher and he got six children and for the purpose of education of the children the demised premises is required. It was also stated that the said Ramchandraiah had secured alternative accommodation and shifted his premises to house bearing No. 9.5.152 at Secunderabad. Further it was stated that Ramachandriah, the first revision petitioner had sub-let the premises to one Krishna who came on record subsequently by filing an application to implead himself as a party. The stand taken by the said Ramachandraiah is that after the death of his father, the premises was under occupation of himself, Chandrakala and her husband. It is also stated that he was in occupation of the premises for some time along with his father, but after purchasing a house he had shifted his residence and his brother-in-law Krishna i.e., 2nd revision petitioner in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 continues as tenant and the said Krishna was brought up by his father as a member of the family and his sister was given to him in marriage. He also narrated the details showing how the rents were being paid and had taken a stand that eviction cannot be ordered on any one of the grounds. The said Krishna who came on record also had taken a stand showing that they are all members of a composite family and the said Venkatesham or his son used to come to the schedule premises to collect rents and Varadaiah died on 28-10-1980 and though after the death of Varadaiah he paid Rs. 210/- towards rent from January 1980 to December 1983 and the said Venkatesham noted the same in the name of the son of Varadaiah with malafide intention and he had denied the other allegations also. As already specified above, the landlord was examined as Pw-1 and the 2nd revision petitioner as Rw-1 and the 1st revision petitioner as Rw-2 and another Jagadamba as Rw-3. Ex.P-1, Ex.R-1 to R-13 and Ex.X-1 are marked and ultimately the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the said R.C. Aggrieved by which the R.A.59 of 1994 was filed on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and during the pendency of the appeal the said Venkatesham died and Jagadeshwara Chari was brought on record and the appeal was ultimately allowed on 7-7-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners have preferred C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997.
7. In C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 in C.M.P.No. 5228 of 2000 one Mr. Balaji, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to note down the physical features of demised premises and the learned Commissioner had also filed a report on 26-12-2001 and objections also had been filed in this regard.
8. C.R.P.No. 4658 of 1997 is filed by said Krishna aggrieved by an order made in R.C.No. 197 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad refusing him to permit to deposit the rents under Section 8 (5) of the Act and the said order was challenged in R.A.No. 448 of 1993 and aggrieved by the same, the said Krishna filed the aforesaid C.R.P. The said R.C.No. 197 of 1989 was filed by Krishna against Venkatesham stating that he is the tenant of the premises and the landlord had stopped receiving the rents from April 1989 and he had remitted the rents for the month of April, 1989 through money order but it was refused by the landlord and again he had remitted the rent for the months of April and May 1989 through money order but it was refused and again he remitted an amount of Rs. 135/- through money order for the months of April to June, 1989 which was also refused by the landlord and subsequent thereto a legal notice was issued and the landlord received the notice and he had again remitted the rents through money order for the months April to June 1989 which was also refused by the landlord and hence he may be permitted to deposit the rents into the Court by following the prescribed procedure under Section 8 of the Act. But however, both the Courts had refused the said relief to the said C. Krishna and aggrieved by the same he had preferred C.R.P.No. 4658 of 1997.
9. In the light of the above factual background it has to be decided whether the impugned orders made by the appellate authority which are questioned in these C.R.Ps are liable to be set aside or the order of eviction made by the appellate authority has to be confirmed.
10. As already stated supra in RC No. 248 of 1986 the landlord was examined as Pw-1 who categorically deposed that Ramachandraih son of Varadaiah had sub-let the premises to Krishnaiah and hence he refused to receive the rents from the said Krishnaiah and he also further deposed that the said Ramachandraiah had left the petition schedule premises and C. Krishnaiah who had examined himself as Rw-1 had deposed that Ramachandraiah is none other than his brother-in-law and he has been residing in the petition schedule house for 30 years along with Varadaiah and the said Varadaiah brought him up from his childhood and gave his daughter in marriage to him and the said Varadaiah died in the year 1980 and Ramachandraiah shifted his residence to another house even in 1979 prior to the death of Varadaiah. Ramachandraiah was examined as Rw-2 who had deposed about the tenancy rights of his father, death of his father and the payment of rents made by his father. Rw-2 in his cross-examination had deposed that he was married in the year 1986 and he was residing in the petition schedule premises and subsequent thereto he shifted his residence after his marriage i.e., June 1986. Thus, the evidence of Ramachandraiah clearly shows that he was residing in the petition schedule premises in June 1986 and the eviction petition was filed on 4.9.1986. It is also pertinent to note that Krishna was not impleaded as a party in eviction petition by Venkatesham since the original landlord never treated him as a tenant at all. May be that he may be the son-in-law of Varadaiah, but the question that has to be decided in the light of the facts of the case is whether Venkatesham, the landlord is duty bound legally to recognise Krishna as tenant after the death of Varadaiah even though the natural heir must be residing in the same house Ramachandraiah is available. As far as refusal of the Courts to give permission to C. Krishna to deposit rents under Section 8 (5) of the Act is concerned, both the Courts had recorded concurrent findings and no doubt questioning the same C.R.P 4658 of 1997 had been filed, but the fact remains that both the Courts were not inclined to permit C. Krishna even to deposit rents, evidently, since status of tenant has not given to the said Krishna. Mere relationship of Krishna as son-in-law of original tenant Varadaiah may not confer on him the status of a tenant as such. May be in the absence of natural heirs and if the other natural heirs of deceased Varadaiah are not residing in the schedule premises, in view of particular set of facts and circumstances, the other close relative like nephew or son-in-law may also be recognised as a statutory tenant by virtue of the provisions of the Act.
11. Section 2 (ix) of the Act defines the tenant as follows:
"(ix) 'Tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant's family upto the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority."
12. The definition is inclusive and the words" includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenants family after the death of the tenant" assume much importance. In the present case Ramachandraiah as per his own admission had continued in the same house even after the death of his father. The relationship of the landlord and tenant and the heritable rights to the legal heirs of the tenant are specifically governed by the provisions of the Act. When the natural heir Ramachandraiah had been living in the same family even subsequent to the death of his father Varadaiah, it cannot be said that the landlord is under a legal obligation to recognise Krishna as his tenant and hence the original landlord Venkatesham was justified in not recognising the son-in-law of late Varadaiah as his tenant. In this context, no doubt, strong reliance was placed on R. Ramanujam's case wherein it was held even though nephew does not come under the categories of persons in Section 2 (ix) of the Act. He would come under the legal representative as defined under Section 2 (ii) C.P.C as there is no definition of legal representative in the Act. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the question was relating to the maintainability of application filed by the legal representative of the deceased-tenant though he does not fall within the category of the persons specified under Section 2 (ix) of the Act. As aforesaid reliance was placed on Vijay Kumar's case wherein under the provisions of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, in an ejectment petition on the death of tenant of a shop, the husband of daughter of tenant's family was held to be a family member and tenant's rights devolve on the heirs after tenant's death. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the reasons specified by me supra. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners also had drawn my attention to certain admissions made by Pw-1 relating to collection of rents and the relationship of the parties. Strong reliance was placed on Rashik lal's case wherein under C.P. and Bearer Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, if the landlord accepted accumulated rents without any objection, eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rents was held to be not permissible. The said question may not arise in this case at all because the appellate authority had proceeded to decide the matter totally negativing the stand taken by Krishna and also accepting the stand taken by the original landlord Venkatesham that Ramachandraiah being the legal heir, son of Varadaiah who had been continuing in the schedule premises after the death of Varadaiah alone can be treated as the heritable statutory tenant and not the son-in-law and hence in the light of the detailed and clear reasons which had been recorded by the appellate authority, I do not find any perversity or legal infirmity in the said findings recorded by the appellate authority.
13. It is no doubt true that several contentions had been advanced by the respective counsel relating to the other grounds. The ground of bona fide requirement was not pressed and as far as the other grounds of sub letting and securing alternative accommodations are concerned, though the provisions as such are not specified, the grounds have been specifically raised, but however there is no detail discussion or clear findings recorded relating to these grounds. No doubt, certain observations had been made on the aspect of sub letting which are not clear. Hence, it cannot be said that on other grounds also the order of eviction can be made in the facts and circumstances of the case, but however as far as the ground of wilful default is concerned, in the light of specific findings recorded negativing the defence taken by C. Krishna I have no hesitation to hold that the appellate authority is justified in reversing the order of the Court of first instance relating to the relief of eviction on the ground of wilful default. As already observed by me in C.M.P.No. 5228 of 2000 in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997 a Commissioner namely Mr. M. Balaji was appointed by this Court and the said Commissioner had filed a report with certain photographs and with negatives. No doubt, formal objections had been filed to the report of the Commissioner, in the light of the findings recorded above by me, a detailed consideration of the report of the Commissioner may not be necessary. But, however, it may be relevant to note as to what had been stated by the Commissioner appointed by this Court in this context. The relevant portion of the report of the Commissioner reads as follows:
"I observed that there are no walls separating any rooms and there is huge quantity of debris lying. I found that the mud roof building has collapsed and the debris of collapsed building are there. There are sticks, rods and big logs which were used for slab of the building. So far as the building is concerned there is no standing wall and it is not even possible to enter into the place in which the building is alleged to be taken on rent.
It is submitted that I felt it is necessary to take photographs to explain the exact situation of the building and I engaged a photographer Sri.A. Babu Rao, R.P Road, Secunderabad to take photographs of the demised premises. I instructed the photographer to take photographs in all angles. I am herewith furnishing the same for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
14. From the report of the Commissioner, it is clear that the condition of the building is also in very bad shape. Be that as it may, in the light of the concurrent findings recorded refusing to accord permission to C. Krishna to deposit rents and in the light of the clear findings recorded by the appellate authority in R.A.No. 59 of 1994 declining to give C. Krishna the status of a tenant, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders made by the appellate authority.
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, both the C.R.Ps are devoid of merits and accordingly both the C.R.Ps are dismissed with costs. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted two months time to vacate the premises.