THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISIONPETITION No.2195 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed R.C.No.760 of 1995 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the premises bearing No.17-1-388/P/11, Lakshminagar Colony, Hyderabad. The petitioner and the respondent are said to be acquainted with each other as employees in A.P.S.R.T.C. He pleaded that the tenancy commenced in the year 1987 at the rent of Rs.200/- per month and that the petitioner was prompt in paying the rents up to April, 1995. Complaining that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents from May 1995 on wards, the respondent prayed for the eviction of the petitioner. Allegations were also made as to the misconduct on the part of the petitioner with the wife of the respondent. Reference was made to O.S.No.2708 of 1995 filed in the Court of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner, to restrain him from damaging or changing the premises and a complaint submitted in the Police Station. The acts of waste, which are likely to impair the utility of the premises, were also pleaded. The petitioner opposed the R.C. by filing a detailed counter- affidavit. He denied the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord between himself and the respondent. He admitted that the respondent owned plot No.11 admeasuring 253 square yards. It was alleged that the respondent approached the petitioner offering to sell a part of it, comprising of 86 square yards, and that, he purchased the same for Rs.10,700/- in March, 1985. The construction is said to have been made by the petitioner himself with the consent of the respondent. A further sum of Rs.2,000/- is said to have been paid, when an agreement of sale was executed on 21.12.1986. It was alleged that the original agreement was taken by the respondent on a pretext and was not returned. He stated that when the respondent did not execute the sale deed, he filed O.S.No.4996 of 1995 in the Court of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. Objection was also raised on the basis of age of the building referred to under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). Through its order, dated 26.06.2006, the trial Court allowed the R.C. and ordered eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed R.A.No.210 of 2006 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 01.04.2009. Hence, this civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Act. Sri Ravindra Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner has virtually denied the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord, the Rent Controller ought not to have decided the matter on merits. He contends that the very fact that a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale was filed by the petitioner was sufficient to persuade the Rent Controller to reject the R.C. He further submits that even according to the respondent, the building was constructed some time in the year 1987 and the R.C. was filed before expiry of the period, mentioned under Section 32(b) of the Act. Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, who joined as a tenant by taking advantage of the acquaintance with the respondent has not only committed default in payment of rents, but also harassed the respondent and his wife beyond tolerable limits. He contends that the petitioner filed O.S.No.4996 of 1994 with a mala fide intention and the same has since been dismissed. He further submits that though a vague plea as to the age of the building was raised by the petitioner, he did not substantiate it before the Rent Controller and at any rate, the building is more than 15 years old. The respondent prayed for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises, on the ground of willful default and acts of wastage. The petitioner opposed the case by denying the very existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Certain other grounds were also pleaded. Though the adjudication of a case under the Act is summary in nature, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration, obviously, in view of the vociferous nature of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties 1. Whether there is any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent? 2. Whether the denial of title of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises by the respondent is bona fide or mala fide? 3. Whether the respondent has committed default in payment of rent from May, 1995 to October, 1995 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month in respect of the petition schedule premises and if so whether such default can be construed as willful default? 4. Whether the respondent has created nuisance and is liable to be evicted on this ground from the petition schedule premises? 5. Whether the respondent has committed acts of waste in respect of the petition schedule property which are likely to impair the material utility of the petition schedule premises? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P40 were filed. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R1 to R106 were filed. The emphasis was mostly upon the existence of relationship, which in turn is referable to the question whether the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is bona fide or not. The respondent alleged that the tenancy commenced in March 1985. There is no denial of fact that the petitioner and the respondent were known to each other by that time as employees in the same organization. The plea of the petitioner was that he joined the premises as a purchaser and not as a tenant. The trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the respondent on all the points framed by it. The lower appellate Court affirmed the said findings. In view of the extensive arguments advanced before this Court, the following questions arise for consideration: (a) whether the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is bona fide; (b) whether there exist any circumstances that render the R.C. filed by the respondent, not maintainable. The question as to whether there was any default in payment of rents on the part of the petitioner would not arise. The reason is that it was not the case of the petitioner that he ever paid the rents. The petitioner did not dispute the ownership of the respondent, over the premises in question. Even while denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, he pleaded that he purchased the premises in the year 1985. The case put forward by him is somewhat strange. It was urged that after the purchase was made in the year 1985, an agreement of sale was executed on 21.12.1986. This is said to have been followed by another agreement, dated 30.07.1987. Almost at the same time when R.C.No.760 of 1995 was filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed O.S.No.4996 of 1995 in the same Court for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The lis of the suit became the subject matter of the proceedings before this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ultimately, the dismissal of the suit became final. The respondent filed certified copy of the decree as Ex.P12. The dismissal of a suit for specific performance, under whatever pretext, would have its own impact upon the bona fides or the genuinity of the plea raised by the petitioner. The reason is that it is not a case where the petitioner stated that somebody else other than the respondent is the owner of the premises. He asserted the title in himself. Either he should have placed necessary documents evidencing the title or ought to have pursued remedies to acquire the title. He failed on both counts. There is another important factor, which belies the assertion of the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the wife of the respondent, alleging criminal acts against her person, Crime No.12 of 1992 was registered against the petitioner. That, in turn, was tried as C.C.No.802 of 1995. The deposition of the petitioner herein in that case was marked as Ex.P2. He categorically stated that he is the tenant in respect of the premises. To the same effect was the admission by some of the witnesses, who figured as witnesses in the instant case also. Therefore, if one takes into account the fact that: (i) the petitioner admitted the original ownership of the premises by the respondent, but failed to prove any transfer of the same in his favour, and (ii) the petitioner admitted in certain other proceedings before a Court of law that he is a tenant of the premises, it clearly emerges that the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is not bona fide. The petitioner made an attempt to non-suit the respondent by taking the plea as to the age of the building. In fact, that plea was self-contradictory and mutually exclusive. When the petitioner pleaded that he purchased the land, constructed the rooms with the permission of the respondent, he cannot be permitted to plead that the respondent constructed the building. Whatever be the permissibility of taking contradictory pleas in the ordinary civil suits, in matters of that nature, that too those touching upon the jurisdiction, the petitioner is required to be firm and clear in his assertion. The jurisdiction of a civil Court cannot be taken away on the strength of such half-hearted pleas. At any rate, the petitioner did not make any endeavour to substantiate his contention, much less, he insisted on a point being framed upon it. Further, the prohibition contained under Section 32(b) of the Act is not absolute. Even where a petition was not maintainable by the time it was presented, if it emerges that the requirement under the provision stood complied with during the pendency of the proceedings, the bar as to the maintainability ceases. Section 32(b) of the Act was held to be both prospective and retrospective. The learned counsel for the parties have relied upon several judgments in support of their contentions. However, in view of the fact that the adjudication of this case is upon the settled principles and mostly on facts, this Court feels that it is not necessary to refer them in detail. The voluminous record of this case discloses that the petitioner has subjected not only the respondent but also his wife to humiliation and harassment for their sin of permitting him as their tenant. He subjected them to litigation of very high magnitude before various Courts. As of now, he is said to have filed a suit for declaration. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, without costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 13.08.2009 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl