supreme court: proof of ownership varies in landlord - tenant litigation and title suit

7/25/2019 Supreme Court: Proof of Ownership varies in Landlord - Tenant Litigation and Title Suit.

1/19Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF !!7

M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Sirigiri Narasing Rao & rs. Respondent(s)

J U D " M E N T

Ab#a$ Ma%o#ar Sapre& J.

!) "his appeal is #iled against the #inal $udg%ent

and order dated '..* o# the +igh ,ourt o#

-udiature Andhra 0radesh at +1dera2ad in ,ivil

Revision 0etition No. *3 o# 4here21 the +igh

,ourt allo4ed the revision petition #iled 21 the

respondents herein and set aside the $udg%ent dated

!5.. passed 21 the Additional ,hie# -udge ,it1

S%all ,auses ,ourt +1dera2ad in R.A. No. 6 o# !3

1


2/19Page 2

and restored the $udg%ent dated 6!.!.!5 passed

21 the 0rinipal Rent ,ontroller Seundera2ad in R.,.

No. !'* o# !6.

) 7n order to appreiate the issue involved in this

appeal 4hih lies in a narro4 o%pass it is neessar1

to set out the relevant #ats in 2rie# in#ra.

6) "he pre%ises 2earing No. 868' to '9

Regi%ental Ba:ar Seundera2ad (hereina#ter re#erred

to as ;suit pre%ises< 4as purhased $ointl1 21 the

predeessors o# the appellants herein under a

registered sale deed dated 3.5.!9 #ro% Sirigiri

=ellaiah and others 4hih the1 sold in disharge o#

pre8e>isting %ortgage de2t to avoid ourt attah%ent

in .S. No. !53 o# ! on the #ile o# the ?istrit

,ourt. Sine the date o# sale the respondents@

predeessors ontinued to oup1 the suit pre%ises

and thus 2ea%e the tenants o# the appellants@

predeessors8in8title on a %onthl1 rent o# Rs.!/8 in

2


3/19Page 3

addition to pa1%ent o# propert1 ta>es onservan1

and eletriit1 harges et. under an agree%ent dated

!.3.!9. "he said agree%ent 4as inorporated in

a 2oo %aintained 21 the appellants@ predeessors in

the regular ourse o# 2usiness and 4as dul1 signed 21

the respondents@ predeessors 21 4a1 o# rent ever1

%onth. A#ter the death o# Sirigiri Vish4anadha% i.e.

respondents@ predeessor his #our sons 2ea%e the

tenants and ontinued to pa1 %onthl1 rent at the rate

o# Rs.5*/8 2esides other harges. "he respondents are

the grand hildren o# late Sirigiri Vish4anadha% 4ho

ontinued to oup1 the suit pre%ises as the tenants

o# the appellants. +o4ever the respondents stopped

pa1ing rent 4.e.#. !.'.!35 to the appellants. Sine

the rent 4as not 2eing paid in spite o# repeated

reuests and de%ands a legal notie 4as sent 21 the

appellants to the respondents on .5.! to 4hih

interi% repl1 4as sent on 6.3.! #ollo4ed 21 a

3


4/19Page 4

detailed repl1 on 6.3.! and therea#ter there 4ere

e>hange o# legal noties ensued 2et4een the parties.

9) Sine despite servie o# the legal notie sent 21

the appellants to the respondents de%anding arrears

o# rent the respondents #ailed to o%pl1 4ith the

de%and the appellants #iled Evition 0etition 2eing

R.,. No. !'* o# !6 2e#ore the 0rinipal Rent

,ontroller Seundera2ad against the respondents

under Setion ! o# the A.0. Buildings (Cease Rent

and Evition) ,ontrol At !' (hereina#ter re#erred to

as ;the At


5/19Page 5

appellants had purhased the suit pre%ises 4as a

%ortgage 4ith a right o# re8onve1ane 4hereas the

respondents@ predeessors ontinued to 2e the o4ners

o# the suit pre%ises. Aording to the% the suit

pre%ises 4as o##ered onl1 as a seurit1 #or 2orro4ed

a%ount and su2seuentl1 their #ore#athers disharged

the lia2ilit1 o# 2orro4ed a%ount. +o4ever due to

so%e reasons the respondents@ #ore#athers ould not

o2tain the re8onve1ane o# the suit pre%ises in their

na%e though o4nership o# suit pre%ises re%ained

4ith the respondents@ #ore#athers. 7t 4as also averred

that #or the last #i#t1 1ears there 4as no pa1%ent o#

rent either 21 the% or their #ore#athers in respet o#

the suit pre%ises 4hereas their #ore#athers paid the

propert1 ta> et. as the o4ners. 7t 4as also averred

that the appellants #a2riated the reords to #ile an

evition petition against the respondents.

5


6/19Page 6

') Vide order dated 6!.!.!5 the Rent ,ontroller

dis%issed the petition #iled 21 the appellants.

5) ,hallenging the said order the appellants #iled

#irst appeal 2eing R.A. No. 6 o# !3 2e#ore the

Additional ,hie# -udge ,it1 S%all ,auses ,ourt at

+1dera2ad.

3) B1 order dated !5.. the Additional ,hie#

-udge S%all ,auses ,ourt allo4ed the appeal and

4hile setting aside the order o# the Rent ,ontroller

direted the respondents to vaate and handover the

vaant possession o# the suit pre%ises to the

appellants 4ithin t4o %onths #ro% the date o# the

$udg%ent. 7t 4as held 21 the appellate ,ourt that the

appellants@ predeessors 4ere the o4ners o# the suit

pre%ises on the strength o# sale deed8E>.0.5. 7t 4as

also held that the sale in uestion in relation to the

suit pre%ises 2et4een the parties 4as not a

transation o# %ortgage as alleged 21 the respondents

6


7/19Page 7

2ut it 4as an outright sale in #avour o# the appellants@

predeessors8in8title. 7t 4as also held that the

respondents #ailed to addue an1 evidene to prove

that the transation o# sale o# suit pre%ises 4as a

%ortgage and the 2orro4ed a%ount having 2een paid

the %ortgage 4as redee%ed. 7t 4as also held that the

respondents@ predeessors 4ere there#ore in

possession o# the suit pre%ises as tenants and later

2ea%e the appellants@ tenants 21 operation o# la4. 7t

4as also held that the respondents #ailed to pa1 the

arrears o# rent #ro% !.'.!35 and hene the1

o%%itted 4ill#ul de#ault in pa1%ent o# rent rendering

the%selves lia2le to 2e evited #ro% the suit pre%ises

under the provisions o# the At.

) Against the said $udg%ent the respondents

herein #iled revision petition 2eing ,.R.0. No. *3 o#

2e#ore the +igh ,ourt.

7


8/19Page 8

!) Cearned Single -udge o# the +igh ,ourt 21

i%pugned $udg%ent dated '..* allo4ed the

revision petition #iled 21 the respondents herein and

set aside the $udg%ent o# the Additional ,hie# -udge

S%all ,auses ,ourt and restored the order o# the Rent

,ontroller.

!!) Aggrieved 21 the said $udg%ent the appellants

have pre#erred this appeal 21 4a1 o# speial leave.

!) +eard Mr. B. Adinara1an Rao learned senior

ounsel #or the appellants and Mr. A.".M. Ranga

Ra%anu$a% learned senior ounsel #or the

respondents.

!6) Mr. B. Adinara1ana Rao learned senior ounsel

appearing #or the appellants 4hile assailing the

legalit1 and orretness o# the i%pugned order urged

t4o su2%issions. 7n the #irst plae he su2%itted that

the +igh ,ourt erred in allo4ing the respondents@

revision petition and there21 erred in inter#ering in its

8


9/19Page 9

revisionar1 $urisdition 21 upsetting a 4ell reasoned

#indings o# #ats reorded 21 the #irst appellate ,ourt

in #avour o# the appellants. +e #urther su2%itted that

the #irst appellate ,ourt 4hile hearing the appellants@

appeal 4as 4ithin its $urisdition to pro2e into all

issues o# #ats and the evidene and reord its #inding

de horsthe #indings o# the Rent ,ontroller and one

an1 #inding o# #at 4as reorded 21 the #irst appellate

,ourt then suh #inding is 2inding on the +igh ,ourt

4hile hearing the revision against suh $udg%ent o#

the #irst appellate ,ourt. Cearned ounsel pointed out

#ro% the i%pugned $udg%ent that the +igh ,ourt in

this ase deided the revision lie the #irst appeal

4ithout eeping in %ind the su2tle distintion

2et4een the revisionar1 and the #irst appellate

$urisdition there21 o%%itted a $urisditional error in

rendering the i%pugned $udg%ent.

9


10/19Page 10

!9) 7n the seond plae learned senior ounsel #or

the appellants su2%itted that even other4ise there

4as no $usti#iation on the part o# the +igh ,ourt on

#ats to have reversed the 4ell reasoned #indings o#

#at reorded 21 the #irst appellate ,ourt 2eause

aording to the learned ounsel the appellants 4ere

a2le to prove 4ith adeuate evidene addued 21 the%

that #irstl1 the1 4ere the o4ners o# the suit pre%ises

and seondl1 there 4as a relationship o# landlord and

tenant 2et4een the predeessor8in8title o# the

appellants and the respondents@ predeessor8in8title in

relation to the suit pre%ises. 7t 4as also urged that in

the evition petition #iled 2e#ore the Rent ,ontroller

under the At the issue o# title to the suit pre%ises

ould not 2e gone into lie a regular title suit 1et the

appellants addued adeuate evidene to prove their

title over the suit pre%ises and the relationship o#

landlord and tenant 2et4een the parties 4hereas the

10


11/19Page 11

respondents #ailed to prove that the sale o# suit

pre%ises in #avour o# the appellants@ predeessors 4as

not a sale 2ut 4as a transation o# %ortgage and that

their predeessor8in8title redee%ed the alleged

%ortgage 21 repa1ing the de2t.

!*) 7n support o# his su2%issions learned ounsel

relied upon the deision o# the ,onstitution Benh o#

this ,ourt in H'%()*ta% Petrole)+ Corporat'o%

L'+'te( ,*. D'lba#ar S'%-#& (!9) S,, 53.

!') 7n ontra Mr. A.".M. Ranga Ra%anu$a% learned

senior ounsel #or the respondents supported the

i%pugned $udg%ent and pra1ed #or its upholding

alling no inter#erene therein.

!5) +aving heard learned ounsel #or the parties and

on perusal o# the reord o# the ase 4e #ind #ore in

the su2%issions o# the learned ounsel #or the

appellants.

11


12/19Page 12

!3) "he ,onstitution Benh o# this ,ourt settled the

la4 relating to e>erise o# $urisdition o# the +igh

,ourt 4hile deiding revision in rent %atters under

the Rent ,ontrol At in the ase o# H'%()*ta%

Petrole)+ Corporat'o% L'+'te( *)pra/. -ustie

R.M. Codha the learned ,hie# -ustie speaing #or the

Benh held in para 96 thusD

02. 3e #ol(& a* 4e +)*t& t#at %o%e o5 t#eabo,e Re%t Co%trol At* e%t'tle* t#e H'-#Co)rt to '%ter5ere 4't# t#e 5'%('%-* o5 5atreor(e( b$ t#e 5'r*t appellate o)rt5'r*tappellate a)t#or't$ bea)*e o% reappre'at'o%o5 t#e e,'(e%e& 't* ,'e4 '* ('55ere%t 5ro+ t#eo)rta)t#or't$ belo4. T#e o%*'(erat'o% ore8a+'%at'o% o5 t#e e,'(e%e b$ t#e H'-#Co)rt '% re,'*'o%al 9)r'*('t'o% )%(er t#e*e

At* '* o%5'%e( to 5'%( o)t t#at 5'%('%- o55at* reor(e( b$ t#e o)rta)t#or't$ belo4'* aor('%- to la4 a%( (oe* %ot *)55er 5ro+a%$ error o5 la4. A 5'%('%- o5 5at reor(e( b$o)rta)t#or't$ belo4& '5 per,er*e or #a*bee% arr',e( at 4't#o)t o%*'(erat'o% o5 t#e+ater'al e,'(e%e or *)# 5'%('%- '* ba*e( o%%o e,'(e%e or +'*rea('%- o5 t#e e,'(e%e or'* -ro**l$ erro%eo)* t#at& '5 allo4e( to *ta%(&'t 4o)l( re*)lt '% -ro** +'*arr'a-e o5 9)*t'e&'* ope% to orret'o% bea)*e 't '* %ot treate(

a* a 5'%('%- aor('%- to la4. I% t#at e,e%t&t#e H'-# Co)rt '% e8er'*e o5 't* re,'*'o%al9)r'*('t'o% )%(er t#e abo,e Re%t Co%trolAt* *#all be e%t'tle( to *et a*'(e t#e'+p)-%e( or(er a* be'%- %ot le-al or proper.T#e H'-# Co)rt '* e%t'tle( to *at'*5$ 't*el5 a*

12


13/19Page 13

to t#e orret%e** or le-al't$ or propr'et$ o5a%$ (e'*'o% or or(er '+p)-%e( be5ore 't a*'%('ate( abo,e. Ho4e,er& to *at'*5$ 't*el5 tot#e re-)lar't$& orret%e**& le-al't$ or

propr'et$ o5 t#e '+p)-%e( (e'*'o% or t#eor(er& t#e H'-# Co)rt *#all %ot e8er'*e 't*po4er a* a% appellate po4er to reappre'ateor rea**e** t#e e,'(e%e 5or o+'%- to a('55ere%t 5'%('%- o% 5at*. Re,'*'o%al po4er '*%ot a%( a%%ot be e:)ate( 4't# t#e po4er o5reo%*'(erat'o% o5 all :)e*t'o%* o5 5at a* ao)rt o5 5'r*t appeal. 3#ere t#e H'-# Co)rt '*re:)'re( to be *at'*5'e( t#at t#e (e'*'o% '*aor('%- to la4& 't +a$ e8a+'%e 4#et#er t#eor(er '+p)-%e( be5ore 't *)55er* 5ro+

proe()ral 'lle-al't$ or 'rre-)lar't$.;

!) 7t is also no4 a settled priniple o# la4 that the

onept o# o4nership in a landlord8tenant litigation

governed 21 Rent ontrol la4s has to 2e distinguished

#ro% the one in a title suit. 7ndeed o4nership is a

relative ter% the i%port 4hereo# depends on the

onte>t in 4hih it is used. 7n rent ontrol legislation

the landlord an 2e said to 2e the o4ner i# he is

entitled in his o4n legal right as distinguished #ro%

#or and on 2ehal# o# so%eone else to evit the tenant

and then to retain ontrol hold and use the pre%ises

#or hi%sel#. hat %a1 su##ie and hold good as proo#

13


14/19Page 14

o# o4nership in landlord8tenant litigation pro2a2l1

%a1 or %a1 not 2e enough to suess#ull1 sustain a

lai% #or o4nership in a title suit. (,'(e S#eela < Or*.

,*. F'r+ Pra#la( Ra' Pre+ Pra=a*#& () 6 S,,

65*).

) ,o%ing no4 to the #ats o# this ase eeping in

vie4 the priniple o# la4 laid do4n in the

a#ore%entioned t4o ases and on perusal o# the order

o# the #irst appellate ,ourt 4e #ind that the #irst

appellate ,ourt properl1 appreiated the #ats and

evidene addued 21 the parties and on that 2asis

reorded all neessar1 #indings (detailed a2ove) in

#avour o# the appellants. "his the appellate ,ourt

ould do and in our opinion rightl1 did in the #ats o#

this ase.

!) Cie4ise 4hen 4e peruse the i%pugned order

4e #ind as rightl1 urged 21 the learned ounsel #or the

appellants that the +igh ,ourt did not eep in %ind

14


15/19Page 15

the a#oresaid priniple o# la4 laid do4n 21 the

,onstitution Benh in the ase o# H'%()*ta%

Petrole)+ Corporat'o% Lt(. *)pra/ 4hile deiding

the revision petition and proeeded to deide the

revision petition lie the #irst appellate ,ourt. "he

+igh ,ourt as is lear #ro% the $udg%ent pro2ed in all

the #atual aspets o# the ase undertoo the

appreiation o# 4hole evidene and then reversed all

the #atual #indings o# the appellate ,ourt and restored

the order o# the Rent ,ontroller. "his in our vie4 4as

a $urisditional error 4hih the +igh ,ourt o%%itted

4hile deiding the revision petition and hene it

deserves to 2e orreted in this appeal. 7n other

4ords the +igh ,ourt should have on#ined its inuir1

to e>a%ine as to 4hether an1 $urisditional error 4as

o%%itted 21 the #irst appellate ,ourt 4hile deiding

the #irst appeal. 7t 4as ho4ever not done and hene

inter#erene in this appeal is alled #or.

15


16/19Page 16

) "hat apart 4e #ind that the appellants 4ere a2le

to prove their o4nership through their predeessor8in8

title on the strength o# sale deed (E>80.'/5) o# the suit

pre%ises 4hereas the respondents #ailed to prove their

de#ene. 7ndeed the 2urden 2eing on the% it 4as

neessar1 #or the respondents to prove that the sale in

#avour o# the appellants@ predeessor8in8title o# suit

pre%ises 4as a transation o# %ortgage and not an

outright sale. Sine the respondents did not addue

an1 dou%entar1 or oral evidene to prove their

de#ene the #irst appellate ,ourt 4as $usti#ied in

allo4ing the evition petition. 7n our vie4 the

evidene addued 21 the appellants to prove their title

over the suit pre%ises 4as su##iient to %aintain

evition petition against the respondents and it 4as

there#ore rightl1 aepted 21 the #irst appellate ,ourt.

6) As o2served supra the #irst appellate ,ourt

having reorded ategorial #indings that the

16


17/19Page 17

relationship o# landlord8tenant 4as proved and

seondl1 the respondents had o%%itted a 4ill#ul

de#ault in pa1%ent o# %onthl1 rent and its arrears

#ro% !.'.!35 these #indings 4ere 2inding on the

+igh ,ourt 4hile deiding the revision petition. 7t 4as

%ore so 4hen these #indings did not su##er 4ith an1

$urisditional error 4hih alone 4ould have entitled

the +igh ,ourt to inter#ere.

9) Cearned ounsel #or the respondents lastl1

argued that there 4as an enroah%ent %ade 21 the

appellants on the suit pre%ises and dou%ent (E>808

') 4as inad%issi2le in evidene hene the evition

petition 4as lia2le to 2e dis%issed on these t4o

grounds also. "hese su2%issions in our onsidered

vie4 deserve to 2e re$eted at their threshold 2eause

the sa%e 4ere not raised in the 4ritten state%ent #iled

21 the respondents 2e#ore the Rent ,ontroller and nor

4ere urged at an1 stage o# the proeedings. e annot

17


18/19Page 18

there#ore allo4 suh #atual su2%issions to 2e raised

#or the #irst ti%e in this appeal.

*) 7n the light o# #oregoing disussion the appeal

sueeds and is here21 allo4ed. "he i%pugned

$udg%ent is set aside and that o# the $udg%ent o# the

#irst appellate ,ourt dated !5.. in R.A. No. 6

o# !3 is restored. As a onseuene thereo# the

evition petition #iled 21 the appellants against the

respondents in relation to the suit pre%ises is allo4ed.

"he respondents are ho4ever granted three %onths@

ti%e to vaate the suit pre%ises #ro% the date o# this

order su2$et to #urnishing o# the usual undertaing in

this ,ourt to vaate the suit pre%ises 4ithin 6 %onths

and #urther the respondents 4ould deposit all arrears

o# rent till date at the sa%e rate at 4hih the1 had

2een pa1ing %onthl1 rent to the appellants (i# there

are arrears) and 4ould also deposit three %onths@ rent

in advane 21 4a1 o# da%ages #or use and oupation

18


19/19

as per%itted 21 this ,ourt. Cet the undertaing

arrears o# rent da%ages #or three %onths and ost

a4arded 21 this ,ourt 2e deposited 4ithin !* da1s

#ro% the date o# this order.

') "he appeal is aordingl1 allo4ed 4ith ost 4hih

uanti#1 at Rs.*/8 to 2e paid 21 the respondents to

the appellants.

....................................-.

F-. ,+ECAMESARG

..................................-.

FAB+A= MAN+AR SA0REGNe4 ?elhi

-anuar1 !3 !'.

19

supreme court: proof of ownership varies in landlord - tenant litigation and title suit

Documents