Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pandalaneni Naga Koteswara Rao vs Vinjamuri Chandra Sekhar Rao on 22 January, 2025
APHC010111762020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 170/2020
Between:
Pandalaneni Naga Koteswara Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Vinjamuri Chandra Sekhar Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. C PRAKASH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. DODDALA YATHINDRA DEV
The Court made the following:
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.170 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
–
This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree
in A.S.No.5 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, dated
20.12.2019, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.385 of 2015 on
the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 07.05.2019.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is
the plaintiff in the O.S.No.385 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Mangalagiri.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.385 of 2015 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, with a prayer for evicting the
defendant from the suit schedule property by delivering vacant possession to
the plaintiff, for arrears of Rs.83,200/- towards damages for use and
occupation of schedule property from 11/2014 to 11/2015 i.e., 13 months and
also to pay damages for use and occupation of the schedule property at
Rs.8,000/- per month from 01.12.2015 till eviction with interest and costs.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, decreed the
suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the
above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Mangalagiari. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, dismissed
the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial
Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/ appellant approached
this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be
referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in
OS.No.385 of 2015, is as follows:
The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor
Yekkali Rama Yogeswara Rao on 09.06.2014 vide Doc.No.5222/ 2014 of
SRO, Mangalagiri. By that time, the defendant is lessee to the schedule
property and he is running bamboo sticks business in the schedule site along
with adjoining site situated towards south of schedule property. Prior to
purchasing the schedule property, the plaintiff has informed the defendant
orally about his intention to purchase the schedule property and also informed
him that he has to vacate the property within short time. After purchasing the
property, the plaintiff has informed the same to the defendant orally and
demanded him to vacate the premises but he did not issue any written notice.
Though the defendant was informed orally, he did not take any steps to vacate
the schedule premises. As such, the plaintiff has issued legal notice on
12.10.2014 demanding the defendant to vacate the schedule shop room
saying that he requires the same for his personal occupation. In that notice,
the plaintiff has also clearly stated that the defendant’s tenancy was
terminated and he has to vacate the schedule shop room within 15 days
particularly by the end of October, 2014 and deliver possession to the plaintiff;
failing which, he will be treated as tenant holding over and he will be liable to
pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards damages for use ad occupation of the
schedule property from 01.11.2014 to till eviction. On receipt of the legal
notice also, the defendant failed to comply with the demands of the notice.
Instead he has issued legal notices, dated 15.10.2014 and 25.11.2014 saying
that he took the schedule property on lease at a monthly rent of Rs.1,600/-
and he has sent the rent up to August, 2014 to the vendor of plaintiff. The
defendant has also informed through his reply notices that he has filed a suit
in O.S.No.280 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against
the vendor of plaintiff for permanent injunction and in which he has impleaded
the present plaintiff as a party to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the
suit for evicting the defendant and recovery of damages from him.
7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendant, are as
follows :-
The defendant has admitted his relationship with the plaintiff saying that
he is a tenant to the plaintiff. At the time the defendant entered into the
schedule property, he has renovated the house and he has also cleared the
thorny bushes in the vacant site. The defendant has also raised level of land
by filling mud and he has spent nearly Rs.24,000/- for that purpose and nearly
Rs.50,000/- for remodeling the house. The defendant also gave Rs.25,000/-
towards advance amount. When he joined the schedule property, the monthly
rent is Rs.125/-. As per oral agreement between himself and Yakkala Rama
Yogeswara Rao, the rent should be paid on or before 10 th of every next
month. The defendant continued in the schedule property and the rent was
increased occasionally and it reached Rs.1,600/- per month. The brother of
plaintiff’s vendor by name Peda Yogeswara Rao has also let out his site
adjacent to suit schedule property to the defendant and the defendant is
paying Rs.1,600/- to one Pasumarthy Subramanyam since two years. The
said Pasumarthy Subramanyam has purchased the property of Peda
Yogeswara Rao and hence, the defendant is paying rent to him. The
defendant has filed O.S.No.280 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalagiri against Yakkala Rama Yogeswara Rao and the present plaintiff
for grant of permanent injunction which was decreed in his favour. According
to the defendant, neither the plaintiff nor his vendor Yakkala Rama Yogeswara
Rao did not intimate anything about selling and purchasing of schedule
property at any point of time except tried to evict him forcibly. The plaintiff has
got number of houses and vacant sites at Mangalagiri and presently he is also
doing timber business, he has no need of the schedule property for his
personal use. The civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The
defendant is paying rent of Rs.1,600/- per month and if the plaintiff wanted to
evict the tenant, he should file petition under Rent Control Act.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Mangalagiari, settled the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit
schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 to
PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of
defendant, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.
10. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, after conclusion of
trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and
documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved
thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.5 of 2019
before the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, wherein, the following point came
up for consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled for eviction as sought for?
2) Whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled for damages as sought
for?
3) Whether the finding of the trial Court is sustainable?
4) To what relief?
11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, i.e., first appellate
judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above, against the
defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the
appeal filed by the defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful
defendant in OS.No.385 of 2015 filed the present second appeal.
12. When the matter was before the composite High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the following substantial questions of law
were framed on 21.11.2003:
1) Whether the suit is maintainable in ordinary civil Court
when admittedly Rent Control Law is prevailing in the
locality where the suit schedule property is situated?
2) Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction when there is a
building with Door No.7-397(A) in the suit schedule
property, situated in Mangalagiri Municipality to which
Rent Control Act is applicable?
13. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/
defendant and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing on
behalf of Sri D. Yethindra Dev, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would contend that the
decree and judgment passed by both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
He would further contend that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit
as the suit is filed without jurisdiction. He would further contend that the civil
Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit instead of approaching the Rent Control
Authority, the plaintiff herein approached the civil Court, therefore, the civil
Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He would further contend that both the
Courts below would have observed that the respondent/plaintiff have clearly
stated in his evidence that after purchase of the property, he did not inform the
defendant about the transfer of rights and title in the property in writing to the
defendant. He would further contend that the appeal may be allowed by
setting aside the decree and judgment passed by both the Courts below.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff
would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both the
Courts below came to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled the relief
of eviction of the defendant from out of the plaint schedule property and there
is no need to interfere with the finding given by both the Courts below.
16. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings
arrived by both the Courts below. In a second appeal filed under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is normally not expected to re-
appreciate the evidence on record. It shall not reverse the findings of both the
Courts below except under few situations. If the judgment of both the Courts
below are contrary to mandatory provisions of law applicable to the case, then
an interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
permissible.
17. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record, it has
considered the submissions made on behalf both sides.
18. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a tenant to the
vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on
09.06.2014 under a registered sale deed and after purchase of the property
also it was orally informed by the vendor of the plaintiff as well as plaintiff
regarding the purchase of the property to the defendant. As per the own case
of the plaintiff, he has orally informed the defendant about the purchase of the
property and asked the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property, but he
did not issue any legal notice to the defendant, despite of that the defendant
did not vacate the suit schedule property and finally on 12.10.2014 the plaintiff
issued a registered legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A.2 to vacate the
suit schedule property within 15 days by the end of the month of October,
2014 and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 15
days more particularly by the end of the month of October, 2014; failing which,
he will be treated as tenant holding over in respect of the suit schedule
property and he will be liable to pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards damages
for use and occupation of the suit schedule property with effect from
01.11.2014 till the date of eviction. After receipt of legal notice, the defendant
issued a reply notice by denying the relationship of land-lord and tenant and
he pleaded that he does not know about the purchase of property by the
plaintiff. The defendant admitted the relationship of land-lord and tenant in the
written statement. The appellant pleaded he used to pay rent of Rs.1,600/-
per month to the vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is his land-lord,
therefore, it is quite clear that the appellant admitted relationship of land-lord
and tenant in the between plaintiff and defendant. The appellant specifically
pleaded in the written statement itself that the defendant is a tenant and the
plaintiff is a land-lord and one Yakkala Rama Yogeswara Rao i.e., the vendor
of the plaintiff has let out the suit schedule property to the defendant on
05.12.1979 with a house and vacant site in which the house is in a pell-mell
condition and the defendant is using the same for keeping the centering
material and also bamboo sticks and ballis for sale.
19. The specific plea is taken by the defendant in the written statement
itself is that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The defendant
is paying rent of Rs.1,600/- per month to the plaintiff and if the plaintiff wanted
to evict the tenancy, he should file a petition under Rent Control Act, but not
filing the suit and on that ground the present suit is not at all maintainable.
There is no whisper in the plaint about the quantum of rent paid by the
defendant to the vendor of the plaintiff or to the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the
plaintiff in the plaint itself that after purchase of the property immediately the
plaintiff did not inform the defendant about the transfer of rights and title over
the suit schedule property in writing to the defendant. He further pleaded that
though the plaintiff informed about the purchase of the property and requested
to vacate the suit property and deliver possession, the defendant intentionally
avoided the same on one pretext or other for the reasons best known to him. It
is not the case of the plaintiff after informing the same to the defendant, the
defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. Here the plaintiff did not
plead fresh tenancy, he only pleaded attornment of tenancy. There is no
whisper in the plaint or in the evidence of P.W.1 that the defendant used to
pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the vendor of the plaintiff by the time of purchase
of the property by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff examined his vendor as
P.W.4, nothing was elicited in the evidence of P.W.4 about the quantum of
rent paid by the defendant to the vendor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the
documentary evidence produced by the defendant clearly goes to show that
he used to pay rent of Rs.1,600/- per month to the vendor of the plaintiff by the
date of purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff from his
vendor. Though the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, there is
no whisper in their evidence that what is the quantum of rent agreed in
between the plaintiff and the defendant.
20. The defendant to prove his defence relied on the evidence of D.W.1
to D.W.3. D.W.1 is the defendant in the suit. In cross examination nothing
was elicited from D.W.1 by the plaintiff to show that the agreed rent between
plaintiff and defendant is more than Rs.1,600/- per month. It was also not
suggested to D.W.1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that he used to pay rent more than Rs.1,600/- per month to the vendor
of the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on
09.06.2014 under a registered sale deed. The material on record reveals that
after purchase of the property it was orally informed to the defendant by the
vendor of the plaintiff as well as by the plaintiff regarding purchase of the
property by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he has orally asked the
defendant to vacate the suit schedule property, but the defendant did not
vacate the same and finally on 12.01.2014 the plaintiff issued a legal notice to
the defendant under Ex.A.2 to vacate the suit schedule property within 15
days by the end of the month of October, 2014 and to deliver the vacant
possession of the suit schedule property by the end of the month of October,
2014; failing which the defendant will be treated as a tenant holding over in
respect of the suit schedule property and that the defendant is liable to pay
Rs.8,000/- per month towards damages. After receipt of the legal notice, the
defendant issued a reply notice by denying the relationship of land-lord and
tenant and he pleaded that he does not know about the purchase of the
property by the plaintiff from his land-lord.
21. The defendant admitted the relationship of land-lord and tenant in
between the plaintiff and defendant in the written statement. He pleaded that
he used to pay rent of Rs.1,600/- per month to the vendor of the plaintiff and
the plaintiff is his land-lord. While admitting the relationship of land-lord and
tenant in between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant pleaded in the written
statement itself that the vendor of the plaintiff has let out the suit schedule
property to the defendant on 05.12.1979 and he used to pay rent of Rs.1,600/-
per month to the vendor of the plaintiff in the year 2014 so also, in the year
2015. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant used to pay rent of
Rs.8,000/- per month to his vendor by the date of purchase of the suit
schedule property by him. It is not at all the case of the plaintiff or his vendor
that the defendant is paying rent of more than Rs.1,600/- per month or the
defendant used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent by the date of
alleged sale deed or by the date of institution of the suit. Admittedly, P.W.2 is
one of the attestors in Ex.A.1 sale deed. He has not stated in his evidence that
the defendant used to pay the rent of Rs.8,000/- per month to the vendor of
the plaintiff or to the plaintiff. It is also not the case of P.W.2 that the defendant
used to pay rent of more than Rs.1,600/- per month either to the plaintiff or to
the vendor of the plaintiff. P.W.3 is neighbor of the suit schedule property, he
also not stated in his evidence that the defendant used to pay rent of more
than Rs.1,600/- per month either to the plaintiff or to the vendor of the plaintiff.
As noticed supra, P.W.4 is no other than the vendor of the plaintiff. Nothing
was elicited from P.W.4 in his evidence to show that the admitted rent in
between plaintiff and defendant is Rs.1,600/- per month. The appellant
produced oral and documentary evidence which clinchingly establishes that
the suit schedule property was let out to the defendant and by the date of
institution of suit the rent for the suit schedule property is Rs.1,600/- per
month.
22. The appellant relied on the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3. D.W.2
and D.W.3 stated in their evidence that the defendant has been paying rents
regularly to Yakkala Rama Yogeswara Rao and he used to collect the rents
from the defendant personally in every month and defendant and Yakkala
Rama Yogeswara Rao agreed that the rent should be raised for every three
years and finally Rama Yogeswara Rao have been collecting the rent at
present is Rs.1,600/- per month. They also further stated that the brother of
plaintiff’s vendor by name Peda Yogeswara Rao has also let out the site
adjacent to the suit schedule property and the defendant is paying rent of
Rs.1,600/- per month to one Pasumarthy Subramanyam wherein Peda
Yogeswara Rao i.e., the brother of the plaintiff’s vendor sold the same to
Pasumarthy Subramanyam at about two years ago. Admittedly, the same was
reiterated in the written statement of the defendant. In Ex.A.5 legal notice also
the defendant specifically pleaded that the vendor of the plaintiff used to
collect the rent of Rs.1,600/- per month from the defendant. Admittedly, no
rejoinder was issued by the plaintiff to Ex.A.5 legal notice issued by the
defendant.
23. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the
defendant admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that Rama
Yogeswara Rao used to issue hand letters once in every three years and last
letter was issued to him in the year 2013 and the same is mentioned in the
plaint in O.S.No.280 of 2014 which was filed by him before the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for permanent injunction against the vendor of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff is shown as party to suit proceedings, but the
defendant failed to produce the said letters, therefore, the presumption under
Sections 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act came into operation.
Admittedly, no notice has been issued by the plaintiff to the defendant under
Order 12, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce the said letters
after the defendant made admission in his evidence in cross examination
itself, therefore, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention taken by the
plaintiff.
24. As per the own case of the plaintiff, he purchased the suit schedule
property on 09.06.2014 and he issued the notice to the tenant of his vendor on
12.10.2014 by grating 15 days time by the end of October, 2014 and to deliver
vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the end of October, 2014
by giving 15 days time, otherwise, the defendant will be treated as a tenant
holding over in respect of the suit schedule property and to pay Rs.8,000/- per
month towards damages from 01.11.2014 till the date of eviction of the suit
schedule property. There is no whisper either in the notice or in the plaint what
is the basis for claiming damages at Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, there is
no evidence on record to show that the defendant used to pay rent of
Rs.8,000/- per month to the vendor of the plaintiff by the date of purchase of
the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. It is also relevant to say that there is
no agreement either in oral or in written in between plaintiff and defendant that
the defendant has to pay rent of Rs.8,000/- per month. As stated supra, there
is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that defendant used to pay
rent of Rs.8,000/- per month either to the vendor of plaintiff or to the plaintiff by
the date of filing of the suit. It is also relevant to say that there is no whisper in
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and also in the averments of the plaint about
the quantum of rent agreed in between plaintiff and defendant. On the other
hand, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the defendant clearly
goes to show that the defendant used to pay rent of Rs.1,600/- per month to
the vendor of the plaintiff by the date of sale deed said to have been executed
by the vendor of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2014. There is
a positive evidence on record that in a suit filed for permanent injunction by
the plaintiff against the vendor of the plaintiff and plaintiff herein, the defendant
used to deposit a rent of Rs.1,600/- per month in the year 2015 itself in which
year the present suit is instituted by the plaintiff.
25. It was seriously contended by the appellant in the written statement
itself that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff and
defendant are having relationship of land-lord and tenant and the appellant is
paying rent of Rs.1,600/- per month to the plaintiff and if the plaintiff wanted to
evict the tenancy, he should file a petition under Rent Control Act, but not the
present suit. But, unfortunately, the trial Court has not framed any issue to
decide the jurisdiction aspect. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court has not touched the jurisdiction aspect and decreed the suit in favour of
the plaintiff. As stated supra, there was an ample evidence on record which
was produced by the appellant to show that by the date of filing of the suit, the
rent in respect of the schedule premises is Rs.1,600/- per month, therefore,
this Court has to accept the contention of the appellant that the rent in respect
of the suit schedule premises is Rs.1,600/- only per month at the time of
determination of lease.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff placed reliance of
Kundanlal Rallaram vs. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay1. The
said case law is relates to the promissory note suit, but not dispute in between
land-lord and tenant, therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited case
are different to the instant case.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff did not plead fresh tenancy,
he has only pleaded attornment of tenancy. There is no whisper in the plaint
or in the evidence of P.W.1 that by the date of purchase of the property, the
defendant agreed to pay the rent of more than Rs.1,600/- per month to the
plaintiff and he also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as rent
to the plaintiff. There is no whisper in the plaint about the quantum of rent to
be paid by the defendant and similarly there is also no whisper in Ex.A.2 legal
1
1961 SCC OnLine SC 10
notice and also in the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 that the admitted quantum
of rent in between both parties is more than Rs.1,600/- per month.
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the rent of suit schedule premises
is more than Rs.1,600/- per month. In fact, no finding is recorded by the trial
Court or First Appellate Court regarding the quantum of rent agreed in
between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit schedule property.
Furthermore, the defendant produced cogent and ample evidence to show
that as on the date of fling of the suit, the rent for suit schedule premises is
Rs.1,600/- per month, therefore, this Court came to a conclusion that on the
date of filing of the suit, the rent of the suit schedule premises is Rs.1,600/-
per month. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted. It was
admitted by both side counsels on record before this Court during the course
of arguments that Mangalagiri is a Municipality by the year 2015 in which year
the suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction from
out of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the property is situated within
the limits of Mangalagiri Municipality. The suit is instituted in the year 2015.
Learned counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded that by the year
2015, the property is situated in Mangalagiri Municipality.
27. Law is well settled that the Second Appellate Court cannot
substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of both the Courts below are
manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. If the findings are
based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider the relevant evidence,
then only this Court can interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. If the judgment of the First Appellate Court is based on mis-
interpretation of the documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible
evidence or ignoring material evidence, the High Court in second appeal is
entitled to interfere with the judgment of both the Courts below. If the
conclusions drawn by the First Appellate Court were erroneous being contrary
to the mandatory provision of law applicable or its settled position on the basis
of pronouncements made by the Apex Court or was based upon inadmissible
evidence or arrived at by ignoring material evidence.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the learned trial Judge has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record with regard to the jurisdiction aspect,
though there was ample evidence to show that the rent of the suit schedule
premises is Rs.1,600/- per month and admittedly there is no agreement either
in oral or in written that the rent of the suit schedule premises is Rs.8,000/- per
month or more than Rs.1,600/- per month in between the plaintiff and
defendant. Likewise, the learned First Appellate Judge has not properly re-
appreciated the evidence on record and came to a wrong conclusion and
confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.
28. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra, and the
same has been well settled by Larger Bench of this Court in Ramvilas Bajaj
vs. Ashok Kumar and another2. In the aforesaid case, the Larger Bench of
this Court held as follows:
“It is true that extending the protection of amended Section 32 (c), to
cases where decrees for eviction or recovery of possession have
already been passed and appeals/ revisions are pending there against,
would inevitably result in all pending actions, in which landlords have
applied for possession of their buildings let out to tenants, being set at
naught on the ground that the civil court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try
the suits or entertain petitions for execution of decrees. In this context it
is well to remember yet another rule of construction that, when the words
of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, Courts are bound to
give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences.
[(Guruddevdatta’s case (supra)].
We answer the reference, declaring that:-
2
2007 4 ALD 137 (LB)
i. with effect from 28-5-2005, when the amended Section 32 (c) came
into force, persons, by whom rent payable for a building does not
exceed Rs.3,500/- p.m. within Municipal corporations of the State
and does not exceed Rs.2,000/- p.m. in other areas, would come
within the definition of “tenant” under section 2 (ix) of Act 15 of
1960.
ii. even if such persons have suffered a decree for eviction prior
thereto, they are entitled for the protection of act 15 of 1960
provided they continue in possession of the building.
iii. after 28-5-2005, such tenants cannot be evicted in execution of a
decree in view of the protection conferred on them by Section 10 (1)
of Act 15 of 1960.
iv. after the amended Section 32 (c) came into force, with effect from
28-5-2005, the civil court must be held to have become coram non-
judice, not to have jurisdiction to pass a decree of eviction in
respect of buildings the rent of which in areas within Municipal
Corporations of the state does not exceed Rs.3,500. 00 p. m. and
in other areas not exceeding Rs.2,000. 00 p. m. and its
proceedings, resulting in the decree, a nullity.
v. even if at the time of institution of the suit, or when a decree for
eviction was passed, the amended section 32 (c) was not in force,
but was introduced during the pendency of the appeal a tenant,
who continues to remain in possession of a building whose rent is
below the limits prescribed in the amended section 32 (c), for being
exempted from the provisions of the Act, is entitled for the
protection of Act 15 of 1960, more particularly section 10 (1) thereof,
and the appellate Court is divested of its jurisdiction to pass a
decree of eviction”.
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to
the present facts of the case. Admittedly, the suit is instituted on 21.12.2015
by the plaintiff before the trial Court with a specific plea that he purchased the
suit schedule property from his vendor. Prior to the purchase of the suit
schedule property, the defendant is the tenant in the suit schedule premises
and monthly rent as on the date of institution of suit is Rs.1,600/-. The
admitted rent as per the case of the defendant is also Rs.1,600/- per month as
on the date of institution of the suit. As stated supra, the suit is instituted on
21.12.2025 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri for
seeking eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises.
Therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. As seen from
the entire record, the appellant/defendant specifically pleaded in the written
statement itself that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
because the monthly rent in respect of suit schedule premises is Rs.1,600/-
per month and the suit is not at all maintainable under law. But unfortunately,
no issue is framed by the learned trial Judge on the jurisdiction aspect and
decreed the suit on 07.05.2019 by which date the amended Act came into
force. As stated supra, the amended act came into force with effect from
28.05.2005, the Larger Bench of this Court delivered a decision on
30.04.2007. It clearly goes to show that the learned trial Judge by ignoring the
amended act and also not taking into consideration of Larger Bench decision
of this Court, decreed the suit filed by the landlady against the tenant and
order eviction of the defendant and directed the defendant to deliver the suit
schedule property to plaintiff and therefore, the learned trial Judge committed
a patent error. It is also relevant to say the amended act came into force on
28.05.2005. As stated supra, a batch of the second appeals were disposed of
by the Larger Bench of composite High Court of A.P. on 30.04.2007. By virtue
of amended Act came into force on 28.05.2005, the civil Court jurisdiction is
ousted. Therefore, the present suit proceedings resulting the decree is nullity.
29. As stated supra, the suit is instituted at Mangalagiri Municipality
limits by landlord against the tenant on 21.12.2015 and the admitted rent is
Rs.1,600/- per month. As noticed supra, SECTION 32(C) OF THE AMENDED
ACT CAME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 28.05.2005, IN VIEW OF
THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 32(C) OF THE ACT, THE CIVIL
COURT MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BECOME CORAM NON-JUDICE AND
CIVIL COURT IS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION TO PASS A DECREE OF
EVICTION IN RESPECT OF PLAINT SCHEDULE SHOP. Therefore, the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, has no jurisdiction to pass an order
of eviction of the defendant. An appeal is filed before the first appellate Court
i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in the year 2019. The jurisdiction aspect is
also not touched by the learned first appellant Judge i.e., Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalagiri in his judgment.
30. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court committed a grave error in
decreeing the suit and the first appellate Court also committed error in
confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, both
the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. For
the aforesaid reasons, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable,
because jurisdiction of civil Court is ousted in view of the bar under Section
32(c) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
(amendment) Act, 2005.
31. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge and first appellate
Judge have not rightly appreciated the evidence and legal principles in a
proper manner. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are not held
in accordance with law and both the decrees and judgments of the trial Court
i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri and first appellate Court
i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri are liable to be set aside. Therefore, there
are merits in the present appeal.
32. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the decrees and
judgments passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court are set aside,
consequently, the suit in O.S.No.385 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Mangalagiri is dismissed. Considering the circumstances of the
case, each party do bear their own costs in the suit and appeal.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand
closed.
_________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Dated: 22.01.2025
PGR
[ad_1]
Source link