IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1979 of 2008 Between: Bandaru Bodeyya .. Petitioner AND Yadam Apparao .. Respondent ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree in C.M.A. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge/appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Srikakulam, dated 17-03-2008. The respondent herein filed R.C.C. No.1 of 2005 against the revision petitioner for eviction from door No.12-12-13, plot No.52, T.S. No.212 of Srikakulam with a thatched house therein. The respondent contended that he is a Medari and was allotted the house site with patta No.52 by Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam and he obtained municipal permission in Order No.188/78 to construct a thatched house therein. He was regularly paying property tax to the municipality and he leased out the thatched house to the revision petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs.150/- on the revision petitioner being introduced to him by one Dharma Rao who was a tenant in the house. The revision petitioner was also alleged to have damaged the house, and wilful default in payment of rents was alleged to be from February, 1996. There was earlier litigation between the parties in O.S. No.286 of 1996 and A.S. No.141 of 2000 and the parties were directed to approach the Rent Controller and not the civil Court. There was exchange of notices prior to the petition and the revision petitioner denied the title of the respondent. The revision petitioner resisted the petition contending that he came into physical possession of the property under an unregistered mortgage bond, dated 02-05-1984 executed by Geddam Dharmarao, the owner of the house, and the respondent is seeking eviction without even issuing any proper notice prior to the eviction petition. Hence, he desired that the eviction petition be dismissed with costs. The Rent Controller, during the enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and Ex.R.1. He rendered his order on 05-12-2006 referring to the rival contentions and the evidence and he opined that the respondent herein failed in proving the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties due to his not specifying any details of the lease like the date, etc., and due to his admission that it was Geddam Dharmarao who introduced the revision petitioner to him. The Rent Controller opined that the evidence of P.W.1, supported by P.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard and contradicted by the revision petitioner and his witnesses R.Ws.2 and 3, was not sufficient to be accepted and non-examination of Geddam Dharmarao, who is the material witness, should be taken adverse note of against the respondent herein. The Rent Controller, therefore, considered the respondent herein to have failed in proving the landlord and tenant relationship and dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the respondent herein preferred C.M.A. No.2 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Srikakulam and the same was decided by the impugned order. The appellate authority observed that after the denial of the title of the respondent herein by the revision petitioner, the respondent herein filed Ex.P.3 order of the municipality permitting construction and Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.6 to P.14 property tax receipts apart from Ex.P.15 copy of duplicate patta for the house site in support of his claim of title. The appellate authority also noted that the documentary evidence cannot be considered rebutted by the unregistered mortgage deed Ex.R.1 in favour of the revision petitioner and though the respondent herein was unable to mention the date of commencement of lease, etc., his illiteracy also should be taken into account. The appellate authority further observed that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant should have been accepted when even Ex.R.1 possessory mortgage has its period expired by 1987, after which more than 20 years elapsed by the time of the litigation. The non-examination of Geddam Dharmarao was opined to be not the obligation of the respondent herein and hence, the appellate authority accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on this aspect. The appellate authority also accepted the claims of the respondent herein about the acts of waste and bona fide requirement and consequently ordered eviction of the revision petitioner within two months from the date of his order. The said order is under challenge in this revision on the same grounds on which the rent control petition and appeal were resisted. It was contended that the lease was not proved and the effect of Ex.R.1 was not properly considered. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent are heard at length. The only point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the schedule premises ? Point: It was the specific case of the respondent herein right from the eviction petition that the revision petitioner was introduced to him by Geddam Dharmarao, the earlier tenant in the schedule property, on which the property was leased out for a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The claims of the respondent herein as P.W.1 were not only corroborated by the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard, but also by the documentary evidence, more particularly the copy of duplicate patta, permission of the municipality for construction and payment of property tax by the respondent herein from 1989 till almost the petition as evidenced by the exhibits marked. The contrary evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 or even Ex.R.1 do not trace the source of acquisition of title or any interest in the schedule property by Geddam Dharmarao and the recitals in Ex.R.1 claiming Geddam Dharmarao to be the owner of the mortgaged property also did not elaborate in what manner Dharmarao acquired such ownership. The document Ex.R.1, though unregistered, can be looked into, as the required stamp duty and penalty were paid, is the contention of Sri A. Ramarao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner with reference to the precedents arising from this Court. Without any deep probe into the extent to which Ex.R.1 can be looked into, even if the contents of Ex.R.1 are considered as they are, they only show that Geddam Dharmarao executed the possessory mortgage deed for a period of three years on 02-05-1984 claiming to be the owner of the property. The period of mortgage as observed by the appellate authority had expired decades earlier to the petition for eviction and significantly there is no other document to show any corroboration to the claims of ownership of Geddam Dharmarao over the property. Considering the preponderance of probabilities arising out of the evidence of both parties, there is no reason as to why the evidence for the respondent herein should not be preferred under the circumstances. The non-examination of Geddam Dharmarao could not have been an adverse factor against the respondent herein and if the revision petitioner seeks to displace the claims of the respondent about Geddam Dharmarao being only a tenant earlier, it is for him to examine such person to prove that in fact, he was the owner of the property. The revision petitioner, who is denying the title of the landlord, will have such burden of proof on him after the landlord placed oral and documentary evidence on record, which, ex facie, corroborates his claims. The conclusions of the Rent Controller about the effect of the evidence on record and his perceptions about the burden of proof run contrary to the accepted principles of law of evidence and appreciation of evidence and the appellate authority has appropriately appreciated the effect of the evidence on record and rightly concluded the landlord and tenant relationship to have been probablised. Acts of waste and bona fide requirement were also concluded in favour of the landlord by the appellate authority, to differ from which, there are no strong reasons and it is well settled that the bona fides of personal requirement of the landlord are to be appreciated with reference to the perceptions of the landlord and not the perceptions of the tenant or the Court. Consequently, there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the appellate authority. However, there can and should not be any adjudication of title over the subject property finally in these proceedings, which has to be determined on merits by a competent civil Court, if any appropriate proceedings are brought before it. The options of the revision petitioner to take recourse to such civil proceedings, if he is otherwise entitled to the same, should not be foreclosed by the orders herein. Sri A. Ramarao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for grant of reasonable time to vacate, if the Court for any reason does not agree with his contentions and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same in the light of the litigation already being pending since more than five years. However, as the revision petitioner is residing in this house, it will be just and reasonable to grant a reasonable time for him to vacate after securing alternative residential accommodation in the meanwhile. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs and the revision petitioner is granted time for three months from today to vacate and deliver possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent herein and the revision petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to any proceedings before a competent Civil Court, if he is otherwise entitled to the same, in respect of the controversy about the title to the property, which shall be determined uninfluenced by any observations made in the orders of the Rent Controller or the appellate authority or this Court. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-08-2010 Note: Issue C.C. in two weeks. (Bo) Svv