THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.5885 of 2008 Date:11.02.2010 Between: Narendra Kishore Todi and another. ……..Petitioners. And Rotta Mohan Kumar Ranjan ………Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.5885 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 3.10.2008 passed in R.C.A.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the said order and confirmed the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam in R.C.C.39 of 2000. 2. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of the petition schedule premises. The 2nd respondent is being represented by the 1st respondent. The petitioner’s specific case is that one Rotta Pedda Gurumurthy was the original owner of the premises and that on his behalf, one of his sons Rotta Yerraji Rao entered into an agreement with the respondents on 05.04.1978 letting out the premises for a period of three years. The petitioner is the grand son of one Rotta Pedda Gurumurthy. The petitioner’s father’s name is also Rotta Gurmurthy who is examined as P.W.3. The said Rotta Pedda Gurumurthy who was the original owner of the premises had bequeathed the petition schedule property to the petitioner under Ex.A2-registered Will, dated 7.2.1981. The said Rotta Pedda Gurumurthy died on 15.12.1982 and the Will came into force, and the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property since then. When the petitioner was minor, his paternal grand mother, who was acting as guardian as per the terms of the Will, demanded the 1st respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises. When the petitioner attained the majority, he had also demanded the 1st respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises. The respondents did not pay the rents to the petitioner, but filed R.C.C No.403 of 1995 against the father of the petitioner alleging that he refused to receive the rents and therefore, the respondents may be permitted to deposit the rents. Then the petitioner got issued a legal notice asking the 1st respondent to vacate the premises. The 1st respondent had taken a false and frivolous grounds in his reply notice. Then the petitioner filed this petition for eviction of the respondents from petition schedule property. 4. The 1st respondent filed a counter contending that one Yerraji Rao S/o. Gurumurthy was collecting rents up to 1984 and later Rotta Gurumurthy-P.W.3 informed him that the petition schedule property fell to his share and was collecting rents and that he paid rents by way of cheques till the year 1995 and when the said Rotta Gurumurthy-P.W.3 (father of the petitioner) declined to receive the rents in the year 1995, he filed R.C.C.No.403 of 1995 and since then depositing the rents in the Court and that the said Gurumurthy had been withdrawing the amounts deposited. It is also his case that the petitioner has not informed him about the execution of the Will as alleged in the petition. It is also his case that he paid an advance of Rs.6,000/-. Thus he has denied the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. 5. The learned Rent Controller framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the respondents committed default much less willful default in payment of rent? and (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondents and take possession? 6. On behalf of the petitioner, he, himself was examined as P.W.1, Rotta Yerraji Rao was examined as P.W.2 and Rotta Gurumurthy was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent himself was examined as R.W.1, Sirapalli Chanti Babu was examined as R.W.2 and K. Eswara Rao was examined as R.W.3 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. The learned Rent Controller holding that the plea of the respondents does not amount to denial of the title of the petitioner and that there was no default in payment of rents, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appellate Court reappreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the Will under Ex.A2 and that the plea taken by the respondents that there was no landlord and tenant relationship is a dubious plea and that the denial of the title by the respondents is not bonafide. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred this revision. 8. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner never informed that he became the owner of the property and in view of the same, the stand of denial of title by the respondents is bonafide one. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the entire evidence and also the judgment of the appellate Court. His main submission is that before filing the petition before the Rent Controller, the petitioner got issued a legal notice in Ex.A3, wherein, he had categorically stated that, he became the owner of the property by virtue of the Will under Ex.A2 and at least since that date, the respondents can not say that they had any doubt about the title of the petitioner to the schedule property. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the denial of the title of the petitioner to the petition schedule property by the respondents is a bonafide or not? 12. Admittedly, the grand father of the petitioner is the original owner of the property. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 establishes that the grand father of the petitioner executed a Will bequeathing the property to the petitioner and by the date of the execution of the Will, the petitioner was a minor and his grand mother had been shown as the guardian of the petitioner in Ex.A2-Will itself. It is an admitted case that the petitioner attained majority only in the year 1997. P.W.2 is no other than the brother of the father of the petitioner. P.W.3 is no other than the father of the petitioner. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to passing of title to the petitioner by virtue of the Will executed by his grand father. None of the legal heirs of the original owner of the property disputed the title of the petitioner nor there is any dispute among the family members of the petitioner with regard to the claim of the petitioner. It is clear that there was no dispute among the legal heirs of the original owner of the property nor there was any rival claim by any body. When there is no dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner or passing of title of the petitioner, after the death of his grand father, who executed the Will, then how can we say that the denial of the title of the respondent/tenant is bonafide. Of course, there is no evidence on record to show that any legal notice or a written notice had been issued to the tenant prior to the issuing of Ex.A3-notice informing him about the Will. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly reveals that the petitioner as well as his mother (grand mother of the petitioner) demanded the 1st respondent to vacate the premises. Of course, the demand was oral. 13. According to the 1st respondent who was examined as R.W.1, the father of the petitioner Gurumurthy was receiving the rents. It was suggested to him that he was informed that the petitioner became the owner of the schedule property by virtue of the Will. Of course, he has denied the said suggestion. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that since the petitioner was a minor, his father Rotta Gurumurthy-P.W.3 was collecting rents and subsequently, he too denied to receive the rents. In the above circumstances, the respondent/tenant filed R.C.C.No.403 of 1995 and obtained interim orders permitting the respondents to deposit the rents into the Court and since then the rents were deposited in the Court. 14. The main submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the father of the petitioner had filed an affidavit into the Court stating that he is the owner of the property and also an affidavit seeking permission to withdraw the rents deposited by the respondents. This gives an impression that probably the respondents may be justified in saying that there was a bonafide dispute with regard to the title during the pendency of R.C.C.No.403 of 1995. It is not in dispute that when Gurumurthy refused to receive the rents, the respondents filed R.C.No.403 of 1995. Of course, it is also not in dispute that in R.C.C.No.403 of 1995 was filed against the father of the petitioner only and in that case, the father of the petitioner did not contest the said case and he was set exparte. Merely because P.W.3, claiming to be the owner of the received rents, when the rents were lying in the Court, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that, the petitioner has lost his title or that the petitioner is not the landlord of the schedule premises. Be that as it may, it is clear to my mind that after issuing notice in Ex.A2, informing the petitioner about the execution of the registered Will and about the passing of title to the petitioner to the schedule property, the respondents got knowledge about the Will and that the property was bequeathed to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent/tenant representing the 2nd respondent was not at all justified in denying the title of the petitioner. In all fairness, he should have accepted the contention of the petitioner and should have paid rents to him. Particularly, when nobody disputed the right and title of the petitioner to the petition schedule property. Therefore, the denial of title of the petitioner at least from the date when he had sent the said reply notice in Ex.A4, dated 4.11.1999 is not bonafide. It is clear that the contents of the recitals of the reply notice and the counter filed by the respondent that the denial of the title of the petitioner is not at all justified and since there is no bonafide dispute among the family members of the petitioner or among the legal heirs of the original landlord. Denial of title may arise in a case where there are rival claims to the property or where in case the execution of the Will is in dispute or where there is a dispute among the legal heirs of the original owner of the property or among the sharers of the property, but when there is no such dispute among the persons, who are the legal heirs of the original owner and when there is no rival claim by any other person, denial of title by the tenant clearly cannot be said to be bonafide. Merely for the sake of dispute, if the title of a landlord is denied by a tenant, by stretch of no imagination, it can be said that such denial is a bonafide denial. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner’s denial of title is not bonafide and there are no merits in the revision. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the respondent/tenant is directed to vacate the premises by 30th April, 2011, subject to the condition of paying rents and arrears of rents, if any. No orders as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:11.02.2011 mrb