HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1531 of 2011 Date: August 02, 2011 Between: 1. Unni Krishnan @ Unniraj (since died) and another. … Petitioners and 1. M. Haricharan & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1531 of 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2011 in R.A. No.123 of 2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the lower Appellate Court confirmed the order dated 30th September 2009 passed in R.C. No.235 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller-cum-13th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners’ specific case is that they are the owners of the petition schedule house bearing Door No.1-1-725/A/4/A/1 southern portion of the main building situated at Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. They have purchased the petition schedule house from Smt. Easthar Sunitha under a registered sale deed bearing No.1197/1996 dated 10.6.1996. After purchase, the petitioners got their names mutated in the assessment register of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and since then they have been paying property tax up to date. It is also their case that they got their names changed in the Electricity Department and have been paying electricity charges to the petition schedule property. 4. The first respondent was tenant of erstwhile owner of the petition schedule property Smt. Easthar Sunitha, daughter of Narsaiah, ever since March 1977 and he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, exclusive of electricity and water charges. On the date of purchase of the petition schedule property, the petitioners directed the first respondent to pay the rent to them and in spite of attornment of tenancy, the respondents failed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month and committed wilful default. The total due amount of rent is Rs.16,800/-. It is also alleged that the respondents have denied their title. The petitioners sought eviction of the respondents on the ground of wilful default and denial of title under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 5. The first respondent is the original tenant and the second respondent is the son of the first respondent who came on record after the death of the first respondent. During the life time of the first respondent, he filed a counter and denied the case of the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioners purchased the schedule property from Smt. Easthar Sunitha. The respondents have also denied that the petitioners got their names mutated in the municipal records and also in Electricity Department and paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation and electricity charges. It is also their case that they are not the tenants of the petitioners and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and so the question of payment of rents does not arise. The specific case of the respondents is that they have been in possession of the property since 27 years and have perfected his title by adverse possession. After the demise of the first respondent, the second respondent also filed a separate counter taking the same stand as originally taken by the first respondent. 6. The learned Rent Controller had formulated the points for consideration as hereunder: (1)(a) Whether there is any jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioners and respondents? (b) The denial of the title of the petitioners is bona fide or not? ( 2 ) Whether the respondent is wilful defaulter in payment of rents from 10.6.1996 to 09.6.2003 @ Rs.200/- per month for full 84 months amounting to Rs.16,800/- and liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and one M.J. Bhaskar Rao was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the second respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. 8. The learned Rent Controller, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the documents filed by the petitioners, particularly Exs.A-7, A-10 and A-13, prove that the first respondent had admitted that he is a tenant of late Easthar Sunitha, original owner of the schedule property, and that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the denial of the title of the petitioners by the respondents is not bona fide. On point No.2 also the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and accordingly allowed the petition. Challenging the same, the tenants have preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also having considered the entire material, confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller. 9. Sri M.V. Rajkumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that when the tenants have disputed the title of the landlords, the Rent Controller ought to have returned the petition, since he has no jurisdiction to try and ought to have directed the parties to approach the civil Court. It is also his submission that the landlords ought to have sought a declaration of their title when the tenants have disputed the same. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in K.P. Janakiram v . K. Suguna Bai[1]. It is also his submission that admittedly the tenants have been in possession of the property since more than 30 years and therefore they have perfected their title by adverse possession and therefore now they cannot be evicted by way of rent control proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent was originally inducted as a tenant by the original owner on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. Subsequently, the original owner bequeathed the property in favour of her sister’s daughter Easthar Sunitha and that the petitioners had purchased the schedule property from Easthar Sunitha under a registered sale deed and that in spite of the attornment of tenancy in favour of the petitioners, the respondents failed to pay the rents and also denied the title of the petitioners. It is also his submission that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence and have also taken into consideration the earlier proceedings between the tenants and the original owner Easthar Sunitha and now the tenants cannot say whether the petitioners have no title to the schedule property or the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the petitioners. 11. Now the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether denial of the title by the tenants is bona fide or not? (2) Whether the tenants have committed any wilful default or not? 12. Points 1 & 2: It is not in dispute that the petition schedule property originally belonged to Miss. Eastharamma, daughter of Narsaiah. Admittedly, she had no issues. The vendor of the petitioners Easthar Sunitha claims to the sister’s daughter of the original owner Miss. Eastharamma. It is also her case that Miss. Eastharamma executed a Will and bequeathed the property in her favour and that subsequently she filed O.P. No.41 of 1989 whereunder Will dated 21.9.1988 was probated. The documents filed by the petitioners, particularly Ex.A-1, shows that the petitioners have purchased the property under a registered sale deed vide Document No.1197/1996 dated 10.6.1996 from Easthar Sunitha. They have also filed a copy of the registered sale deed vide Document No.3237/1963 dated 14.11.1963 whereunder Miss. Eastharamma, daughter of Narsaiah, purchased the property from her vendors. The other documents filed by the petitioners are Ex.A-2 – Original extract of assessment register of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad splitting the municipal number dated 10.3.1999; Ex.A-3 – Show cause notice for enhancement of tax dated 17.01.1997; Ex.A-4 – Original tax payment receipt for the period from 01.4.2001 to 31.3.2003 dated 01.5.2002; Ex.A-5 – Sanctioned plan dated 02.11.1973. These documents prima facie show the petitioners title to the petition schedule property. Ex.A-7 is the certified copy of written statement in O.S. No.3539 of 1982 filed by the first respondent. Ex.A-7 shows that the defendant in that case Uniraj, who is the first respondent herein admitted that he is in occupation of the premises No.1-1-725/A/4 upstairs possession as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. 13. It has to be seen that Miss. Eastharamma filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the first respondent. They have also filed Ex.A-12 certified copy of the petition in R.C. No.206 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Ex.A- 13 is the counter filed by the tenants herein. However, in the said counter they seem to have denied the title of Miss. Eastharamma. 14. Thus, a reading of the entire material gives an impression that the finding of the learned Rent Controller and also the finding of the Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, there is nothing to say that the findings of the Appellate Court are perverse. The documents filed by the petitioners show that the first respondent himself in the earlier proceedings admitted that he was a tenant and therefore the denial of the title by the tenants cannot be said to be bona fide. 15. In the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners K.P. Janakiram v . K. Suguna Bai (1 supra) the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default. 16. In that case, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied and the tenant claimed that his father entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.5.1956 with the original landlord and that the tenants entered into the possession of the property by virtue of said agreement of sale and subsequently he had perfected his title by adverse possession. In that case, there was no evidence to show that after executing the agreement of sale in favour of the father of the tenant, the tenant paid any rental amount to the landlord. In the above circumstances, it was held that since the denial of title is bona fide, the burden lies on the landlord to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 17. The facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of this case. It is not the case of the tenants herein that they had entered into possession of the property by virtue of any agreement of sale. The earlier admissions made by the first respondent clearly go to show that he was inducted as a tenant into the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. Therefore, his possession has to be considered as a tenant and even if he has subsequently denied the title of the original owner, it cannot be said that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. A person can claim adverse possession when his possession or asserting title to the property is not denied for more than 12 years by anyone. Thus when his possession is open and without challenge, he may plead adverse possession. Since the original owner has initiated proceedings against the first respondent for arrears of rents and claimed ownership rights, it cannot be said that the respondents have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. 18. It is true that when there is a dispute with regard to the title, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, but such denial of the title must be bona fide. If a tenant denied the title of the landlord and where it appears from the record that such denial is not bona fide, then the Rent Controller will have jurisdiction to decide whether such denial of title is bona fide or not. Merely because, a tenant has disputed the title of the landlord, the Rent Controller will not loose his jurisdiction. The Rent Controller will have jurisdiction to decide whether the landlord has prima facie title to the property and whether the denial of title of landlord by the tenant is bona fide or not. 19. In view of the settled legal position, I am of the view that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to deal with the case, since the denial of the title by the tenant appears to be not bona fide. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the rents to the landlord since several years. Therefore, it is clear that the tenant has committed default in payment of rents. In view of the same, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, has to be confirmed. 20. In view of the above discussion, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners/tenants are granted four months time to vacate the premises i.e., the petitioners shall vacate the premises on or before 30th November 2011 and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent/landlord subject to payment of arrears of rents. No order as to costs. __________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: August 02, 2011. BSB [1] 1995 (2) ALT 61