Partly allowed

T Ramachandraiah v. Narra Ravindra Prasad (Died)

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2019CRP/6206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging eviction orders against a tenant who claimed the leased property was vacant land with temporary structures. The Court held that a shed constitutes a 'building' under the relevant Act and dismissed the petitions, granting the tenant four months to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. Petitioner directed to vacate premises within four months from receipt of this order.

T Ramachandraiah Vs Narra Ravindra Prasad (Died) — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 6206 and 6217 OF 2018

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred assailing the orders dated 11-09-2018 passed in RCCMA Nos. 25 of 2016 and 28 of 2016 respectively, by virtue of which the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cumAppellate Authority under the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, confirmed the orders dated 30.6.2016 passed in RCC Nos. 76 and 77 of 2010 respectively, by virtue of which, the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada allowed the petitions filed by the respondent herein-landlord seeking eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the schedule premises within 60 days from the date of the said order.

¶5

Since facts and issues involved in both the Civil Revisions Petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶6

Briefly the facts of the case are that: the petitioner is the tenant who took the schedule premises on lease from the respondent for the purpose of carrying on business in selling cement rigs and cement tree guards, on monthly rent of Rs.700/- (as the case may be). The petitioner committed default in payment of rents and the respondent filed petition seeking eviction.

¶7

The contention of the petitioner in his counter before the Rent Controller is that the grand father of the first respondent had let out the vacant site to the petitioner’s father which includes the schedule

¶8

¶9

premises now under his occupation and premises under the occupation of the petitioner in RCC.Nos.77 of 2010 and 78 of 2010 and his grand father agreed to pay taxes on the structures to be raised in the site, if any, and the father of the petitioner agreed to leave the same whenever he vacates the premises. A rental agreement was entered into on 23.3.1993 which reveals the fact that it was only a vacant site leased out to him. On enquiry, he came to know that there are other legal heirs to the property apart from the first respondent. The respondent used to collect the rent with irregular intervals and so he waived his right to claim that he (Petitioner herein) committed default in payment of rents much less willful default and as the respondent let out only a vacant site to him, the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

¶10

Considering the rival contentions, the Rent Controller allowed the petitions and ordered to vacate the schedule premises. The lower appellate Court confirmed the said orders by virtue of the impugned orders. The present revision petitions are filed on the ground that the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ( for short ‘the Act’) does not apply to the vacant land and temporary structures raised therein cannot be said to be satisfying the ingredients of ‘building’ as defined under Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act. The finding of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained on the denial of Ex.B.7 document dated 23.3.1993 by the land lord., whose cross examination evidences that open land was leased out and that would suffice the nature of the property and would not confer the jurisdiction on the Rent Controller. On the above grounds, learned Counsel sought to allow the revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.

¶11

¶12

Heard Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. A.Anasuya, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶13

The whole dispute pertains to the definition of the property in the lease agreement entered into between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lease agreement recites that the property leased out to the petitioner is ‘kottu sthalam’. He wants to take help of this recital, to support his contention that it was only a vacant site and not a shop that was leased out to him. Both the Courts below, by considering that there was door number to the schedule property, held that it was a building that was given on lease to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after vacating the site given on lease to him, the respondent raised structures which would suit for carrying his business. He also contends that these structures in the petition land, as stated by the respondent would constitute ‘building’ as defined under Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act. The ‘building’ as defined under the Act means any house or hut or part of a house or hut. The Act does not go further to define what a ‘house’ or ‘hut’ means. The dictionary meaning, which this Court has to fall back of a house is, a building for human habitation especially one that consists of a ground floor and one or more upper storeys; a building in which people meet for a particular activity, a roof over one’s head, lodging place, place of residence. Dictionary meaning ‘hut’ is, a small, simple, single-story house or shelter. Going by the above meanings of house and hut, it can be held that the house which is in the nature as stated by P.W.1 which is in the form of shed, can be held to be a building as defined under Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act.

¶14

¶15

Learned Counsel for the petitioner based his contention on the discrepancy with regard to the age of the construction of schedule property. He relies on the description of the premises made in a form, which is mandated to be filed along with the petition. The description of the premises stated therein is that schedule premises was constructed fifty five (55) years ago. He submits that as against this fact, which was mentioned in the form, P.W.1 in the cross examination stated that his father got constructed the sheds around twenty (20) years ago. The said discrepancy alone cannot be a basis to conclude that the lease was in respect of the vacant land. The cross-examination of P.W.1 would show that questions relating to permission to be obtained from the corporation for construction of shed were put to him and he stated that it is not within the knowledge of P.W.1. The said questions get focused on the respondent seeking his proof that he made construction after obtaining permission from the Corporation. When the existence of door number raises a presumption in favour of existence of a building in the leased premises, the burden would be on the petitioner to show that there was no building when the agreement was entered into and that the respondent got raised the existing shed which according to the suggestions given to P.W.1 can be only after obtaining permission from the municipal corporation.

¶16

The contentions in the counter filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller that the grand father of the respondent let out his total vacant site which includes the premises now under the occupation of the petitioner and the premises under the occupation of the petitioner in RCC Nos. 77 of 2010 and 78 of 2010 would go to show that there were some constructions in the vacant land. Otherwise there would not be any necessity to the respondent to mention it as ‘vacant site which

¶17

¶18

includes the premises now under occupation of the petitioner’. He could as well mention as vacant site that was leased out by the grand father. The cross examination of R.W.1 would show that he only paid the property tax to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation for the petition schedule property. Though he stated that he paid the tax and handed over the receipts to the respondent/landlord and that he filed copy of the same in the Court, they do not help him, as the rental agreement would show that the taxes were agreed to be paid by the lessee himself. Apart from the above, a reading of the rental agreement would suggest that there was a shed in the vacant site when it was leased out. Door number was given and it was mentioned that new service connection that could be taken for the purpose of carrying on business of the petitioner would be in the name of the petitioner and current bills would be paid by the lessee. It goes to show that there was old service connection for the premises which necessitated the petitioner to refer the service connection to be taken by the lessee as new service connection. That would also lean in favour of existence of structures in the premises as on the date of lease.

¶19

The judgment of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, in the case of JAGARAPU THATAYYA @ TATALU Vs. KASIREDDI VENKATARAMANA {1965 An.W.R. 93} does not help the petitioner as it is rendered on the facts and circumstances of the case dealt by the Honourable Court and it does not lay any legal proposition. So also, the judgment of the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of GOBIND SAHAI Vs. NARAIAN DASS {ILR 1972 Delhi 55). The present judgment is completely rendered on the basis of the facts of the case on hand. This Court does not see any perversity in the judgments under

¶20

¶21

revision and hence, there is absolutely no need to interfere with the same.

¶22

In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner, alternatively, sought for six months’ time to vacate the schedule premises. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner-tenant is directed to vacate the premises within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revisions Petitions shall stand closed in consequence. . No order as to costs.

¶24

DATED 9^th August, 2019 Msnrx

¶25

----------------------SMT T. RAJANI,J

T Ramachandraiah v. Narra Ravindra Prasad (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Ramachandraiah v. Narra Ravindra Prasad (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, Vs the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

M. Sivasankar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Poluru Rajnikanth , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

N Ram Kumar Vs Harijana Vidyarthi Udhakara Sangham

Ch.Chandram Vs Narra Ravindra Prasad ( died per Lrs)

Nemala [Gudala] Roja Rani, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dist Vs Nemala Eswara Rao, Visakhapatnam