APHC010127922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 759 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree passed in R.C.A.No. 16/2018 on the file of the Court of Rent Appellate Controller Cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dt. 22.02.2022 confirming the order and decree passed in R.C.C. No. 15/2013 on the file of the court of Rent Controller Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada,dt. 30.08.2018. Between: Chikkam Srinivas @ Chinni, S/o. Adinarayana, 41 y, D.No.1-1-56/B, Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND Mummidi Rambabu Ramachndra Rao, S/o late Surya Rao, 51y, D.No. 1-12- 25, Kondayyapalem, Kakindada, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in execution of the decree and order passed in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dt. 30.08.2018 as confirmed by order and decree passed in R.C.A.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority Cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dt. 22-02-2022 . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. V.V.L.N. SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. N. SIVA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010127922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the ninth day of May, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi C.R.P No.759 of 2022 Between: Chikkam Srinivas @ Chinni ...Petitioner and Mummidi Rambabu @ Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the petitioner: 1.V. V. L. N. Sarma Counsel for the respondent: I.N.Siva Reddy The Court made the following: ...Respondent 2 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short the Act, 1960), against the decree and the order, dated 22.02.2022, dismissing the appeal in R.C.A.No. 16 of 2018 on the of the Court of Rent Appellate Controller-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed against the order, dated 30.08.2018, allowing the petition in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed under section 10 of the Act, 1960, for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property of one portion consisting three rooms in house bearing door number 1-1-56 (old) = 1-1-56 (B) (new), Kondayyapalem, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, East Godavari District, shown as bounded on East: remaining property of the petitioners; West: sandu (narrow passage); South: property of Mummidi Srinivas Rao; and North: sandu (narrow passage), with all easement rights. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were before the Rent Controller. Mummidi Sesharatnam and Munfimidi Rambabu @ Ramachandrarao are the 1®* and 2"'^ petitioners. Sri Chikkam Srinivas @ Chinni is the respondent. 02. The case of the petitioners, is briefly, as follows: The petitioners are the absolute owners of the property, one portion comprising 3 rooms, bearing old door No. 1-1-56 situated at Kondayyapalem, Kakinada. Mummidi Surya Rao, who is the husband of the first petitioner, was the absolute owner of the said property, along with other properties. He died testate, leaving behind the petitioners as 03. 3 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 his legal heirs by executing a registered Will dated 31.07.1996 bequeathing the petition schedule property and other properties to the 1®' petitioner with life interest and the vested remainder to the 2 petitioner, who is their son. The respondent’s parents and sister Nakka Sridevi who was working in the judicial department were tenants of the petition scheduled property. They vacated the same and shifted to a nearby house bearing door No. 1-12-26. Then, the petition schedule property was given for lease to the respondent on 23.05.2012 for a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. The lease was oral and from month to month. He was irregularly paying the rent upto December, 2012. The petitioners demanded the rent, but he threatened them with dire consequences on 31.05.2013. The petitioners reserved their right to recover rent. The petitioners came to know that the respondent had proclaimed that he would file suit against the petitioners. As such, the petitioners filed a caveat petition on 02.06.2013. The notice of the caveat petition was served on the respondent, but the respondent did not choose to pay the arrears of rent. Surprisingly, the father of the respondent got issued a notice with false allegations, and the petitioners replied with the correct state of facts. Since the respondent fell in arrears of rent from December, 2012, he is liable to vacate the house. nd The respondent filed counter denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and further stating, briefly, as follows: 04. The Will, dated 31.07.1996 (said to have been registered on 01.08.1996) is false and forged as the thumb mark on the Will does not belong to Mummidi Surya Rao and the Will shows the name of the wife of Mummidi Surya Rao as Mummidi Seeta Ratnam, but not Mummidi Sesha Ratnam who is the 1®* petitioner. The said Will does not create any right in favour of the 1®* petitioner, as her name is not at all referred a. 4 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 to in it. The Will was fabricated by the petitioners to grab the property of the respondent’s family in which the respondent is presently residing. The will does not disclose the source of the right of Mummidi Surya Rao over the property. In fact, late Mummidi Surya Rao and Chikkam Adinarayana who is the father of the respondent, jointly constructed the house bearing door No. 1-12-25 and 1-1-56(6) situated at Kondayyapalem, Kakinada. The respondent and his family members are residing and enjoying the property in door No. 1-1-56(B). The petitioners are residing in the property in door No. 1 -12-25, without any right. b. St Mummidi Surya Rao died after prolonged illness. As the 1 petitioner is the respondent’s maternal aunt (sister of the respondent's mother), the respondent and his family members looked after the 1 petitioner during her ill health and gave her food, shelter, medical and financial assistance. c. St d. As Mummidi Surya Rao had no children, he brought up his distant relative Singuluri Venkateswara Rao who created problems between himself and the 1®* petitioner. Matters are pending before the Court with regard to the property bearing door No. 1-12-25. Suppressing these facts, under the ill advice of the 2"'^ petitioner who styles himself as son, taking advantage of the unsound state of health of the 1®* petitioner, with connivance of his brother Singuluri Venkateswara Rao, the 1®* petitioner was made hostile to the respondent's family. As the 2^^ petitioner was creating troubles often and, while drunk, when he created trouble and unnecessary litigation, on a complaint lodged by the respondent’s family on 31.05.2013, the e. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 police admonished the 2 petitioner not to cause any nuisance or interfere with the respondent’s family. The 2^^ petitioner instigated the 1®* petitioner with an intention to grab the schedule property and got filed a caveat petition with a false plea of tenancy of the respondent’s family in their own property. Since Ch.Adinarayana, the father of the respondent, is the absolute owner of the schedule property bearing door No. 1-1-56(B), there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent, nor was any rent paid. There is no cause of action for the petition. The non-joinder of parties to the proceedings by the petitioners shows their ill-motive. The petitioners cannot maintain the petition without having any right over the petition schedule property. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 1®* petitioner died, and the 2"'^ petitioner prosecuted the petition by virtue of the Will. An additional counter was filed by the respondent, while reiterating all the contentions in the previous counter, further stating that the 2^'^ petitioner cannot be impleaded as the legal heir of the 1®* petitioner unless the 2 petitioner is declared as the legal heir by a competent Court by filing a succession certificate. f. 05. nd 06. On behalf of the petitioners, the second petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and independent witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked. Exhibit PI is office copy of caveat petition, dt.02.06.2013; exhibit P2 is the postal acknowledgment, dt.04.06.2013; exhibit P3 is the death certificate of Mummidi Surya Rao; exhibit P4 is the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kakinada; exhibit P5 is the proceedings of transfer of title of property issued by Kakinada Municipality, dt.08.05.2015; exhibit 6 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 P6 is the registration acknowledgment issued by A.P.E.P.D.C.L., dt.01.08.2015; exhibit P7 is the certified copy of Will, dt.31.07.1996 executed by Mummidi Surya Rao; exhibit P8 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.445 of 2002; exhibit P9 is the subscription voucher of H.P gas of 2 given by the wife of 2 dt.27.05.2016; exhibit P11 is the policy issued in the name of deceased petitioner: exhibit P12 is the receipt issued at the time of cremation, dt.11.10.2014; exhibit PI 3 is the paper publication. On behalf of the respondent, he himself was examined as R.W.1 and the third party was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked. Exhibit R1 is the rejoinder notice, dated 13.06.2013, got issued by the respondent’s father to the deceased 1®* petitioner, exhibit R2 is the reply notice, dated 21.06.2013, got issued by the petitioner’s counsel to respondent’s counsel, exhibit R3 is the notice, dated 04.07.2013, got issued by the respondent’s counsel to the petitioner’s counsel; exhibit R4 is the two photographs along with CD, and exhibit R5 is Aadhar card of the respondent. petitioner: exhibit P10 is the office copy of complaint petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, nd nd 1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a suit filed under the Rent Control Act, the right and title of the landlord cannot be questioned and further that genuineness of Will cannot be denied by a tenant and relied on the judgment of this High Court in a case between Jalal and sons and another Vs. Sita Bal (died) by Lrs., wherein it held that the genuineness of a Will propounded by the beneficiary only be questioned by a person entitled to inherit the same and not by a stranger having only penumbral right over the schedule property like a tenant, licensee or a person with limited right of occupation, with 07. was can ^20010 ALD 547 BSB, J C.R,P.No.759 of 2022 the only exception when a near relative of the deceased testator who i: given a limited right of vested remainder in the property when such a person sets up absolute right in himself, and that the limited right given to a tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be treated as conferring a right to question the validity of the Will executed by the original landlord. Basing on this decision, the Rent Controller held that the tenant is debarred from questioning the Will, might be related to the petitioner, but not a beneficiary under the Will and there is no right or interest in the property. Then, the contention that the petitioner shall seek declaration of title was rejected, particularly when then the petitioner admittedly is the wife of late Mummidi Surya Rao. The Rent Controller, rejected the contention of the respondent that the profounder of the Will has to establish the same by producing the original Will irrespective of the denial of the Will by the opponent, basing on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Verman (Dead) thr. LRs. Vs. Rajesh Saxena (Dead) by Lrs and another^ holding that it would have been different aspect when the question of execution of the Will is directly and substantially in issue and the original Will was filed in another suit and moreover the attestor of the Will was also examined. The Rent Controller further held that the respondent could not establish the right claimed over the schedule property and that it is the self- acquired property of Mummidi Surya Rao and the couple is issueless, nothing bars him from bequeathing his property to a person of his choice by creating only life interest in favour of his wife. The contention that the 1®* petitioner cannot claim benefit under the Will due to the discrepancy in the name was rejected on the ground that it IS was an ^2017(3) ALD 188 (SC) 8 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 afterthought and it is not their case that Mummidi Surya Rao had any other wife. Coming to the tenancy, the Rent Controller appreciated the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and observed that nothing crucial could be elicited through these witnesses also to discredit the right of the petitioners or with regard to the respondent in occupation of the schedule property as tenant. Similarly, P.W.5 also considered in favour of the surviving petitioner. Nextiy, the Rent Controller appreciated the evidence of R.W.1 regarding the admission that O.S.No.116 of 1994 initiated by Singuluri Venkateswara Rao claiming himself to be admitted son of the first petitioner and Mummidi Surya Rao was dismissed and further Mummidi Surya Rao filed a suit for eviction of Singuluri Venkateswara Rao vide O.S.No.445 of 2002 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kakinada and the same was decreed and later the petitioner was impleaded as the legal heir of Mummidi Surya Rao but died pending the suit and that the appeal against the decree in the said suit was pending before the High Court and further the name of the 2'^'^ petitioner was mutated in the place of Mummidi Surya Rao after his death and electricity bills were marked as Ex.P6 and further that 2"*^ petitioner admitted the deceased petitioner in proof of which Ex.P12 was marked and also a paper publication marked as Ex.P13 was made by Mummidi Surya Rao on 20.06.1994 stating that Singuluri Venkateswara Rao is not their adopted son and reply to the copy vide Exs.RI and Ex.R2 was given by his father to the caveat petition marked as Exs.PI and P2 have expressed the ignorance of the Exs.RI & R2 by the Rent Controller that he did not file any documentary evidence to show the right and title of his father as not the schedule property. The Rent Controller observed that the respondent 08. 9 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 utterly failed in proving his contention hesitation in holding that the respondent was probably inducted into the schedule property as a tenant by the petitioner. and further held that it has no 09. Regarding the arrears of rents, it was observed that though there no documentary evidence to show that default in payment of rents, the Controller P.W.3 and P.W.4 and observed that there i the schedule property in the present case i O.S.No.445 of 2002 filed by Mummidi Singuluri Venkateswara Rao had been decreed IS the respondent committed relied on the evidence of IS no material to show, that IS the same property in Surya Rao for eviction of but, the decree is and that as the were three portions in number of the house is under challenge in the appeal before this High Court evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 revealed that there the house bearing door No.1-1-56 and the door also shown as 1-1-56(B) with the boundaries schedule property, there is entirely different from the no bar to the petitioner to seek the remedy i the petition. It is further observed that the serious consequences if at all in the respondent claims any right over the schedule property on the ground that the father / Chikkam Adinarayana is the absolute owner of the same, it is for him to work out the remedies in an appropriate forum and not in the present petition. The Controller inferred from of P.W.1 to P.W.5, that the tenant the evidence committed willful default in payment of rent, and held that the petitioners respondent from the schedule allowed. are definitely entitled to evict the premises. Accordingly, the petition was 10. Challenging the order of the Rent Controller, preferred R.C.A. No.16 of 2018 before the Controller - the respondent Court of Rent Appellate The appellate consideration, viz., 1) Whether the cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Court framed three main points for 10 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 denial of title is bona fide? 2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established? 3) Whether there was willful default in payment of rents as alleged in the eviction petition? (a) With regard to the point whether the denial of title is bona fide, Section 10 of the Act, 1960, and the decisions in 1) Jalai and Sons (1 supra) relied on by the petitioners to the effect that the limited right given to the tenant under the Act cannot be treated as conferring a right to question the validity of the Will propounded by the beneficiary in whose favour the premises was bequeathed by the deceased original landlord and that where L.Rs. of the landlord under a Will were brought on record which was not objected by the tenant would go to show that the tenant’s denial of the title of L.Rs. is not bona fide and liable to be evicted under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act, 1960. 2) Lingala Konda Rao Vs.. Vulukuri Narayana Rao^, referred by the Appellate Controller, it was held that in a suit for eviction of a tenant, the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord could not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has been executed and registered in accordance with law and the transaction is otherwise legal. 3) Jithendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh^ relied on by the respondent, wherein it was held that any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of Will, the party who is claiming title / right on the basis of Will has to approach a civil Court and on crystallization of right, necessary mutation entry can be made. This decision was not relied on by the Appellate Controller stating as not applicable to support the version of the respondent. 4) Sony Vs. Nageswara Rao® referred by 2003 (2) ALT 45 (SC) “ LAWS (SC) 2021 (9) 22 M991 (3) ALT 200 11 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 the Appellate Controller, wherein it was held that when a tenant / party in a petition for eviction raises a dispute of title, the rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the landlord and that the limited jurisdiction conferred under the Act, 1960 is to decide whether the denial or claim of title by the tenant is bona fide or not and further held that there is no finality to the decision on title given by the Controller who can decide title only incidentally and not finally. 5) M. Subbaramayya Vs. B. Narasimha Swamy® referred by the Appellate Controller, wherein it was held that under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act, 1960, if the tenant denies title of the landlord or claims permanent tenancy, the Rent Controller has to determine the bona tides of that plea and the eviction petition shall be dismissed if the denial is bona fide, and if not, eviction shall be ordered. It was further held that Section 10 of the Act, 1960 itself provided procedure for denial of title. 6) Satyanarayana Singh Vs. Y. Maniamma^ referred by the Appellate Controller, wherein, dealing with denial of title, it was held that the following points must be satisfied to order eviction of a tenant viz., (a) categorical averment in the counter denying the title of landlord; (b) averment denying the subsistence of tenancy; (c) averment disputing the relationship of the landlord and the tenant; and (d) making a specific averment of setting up a title in himself by the tenant. The Appellate Controller observed that in the case on hand, the respondent had taken all the pleas as mentioned in Satyanarayana Singh (supra) and that the respondent cannot deny the bona tides of the Will without adducing contrary evidence to rebut the same and that the Appellate Controller has inherent jurisdiction to deal with this case and the respondent is liable to be evicted. N- . ® 2005 (5) ALT 206 M999 (1) ALT 298 12 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 (b) In so far as the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, the Appellate Controller held that the case of the petitioners as deposed by PW1 and PWs 3 to 5 was corroborated with the evidence of PW1 but no material was elicited in their cross examination to discredit their evidence and that no positive evidence was adduced in support of the case pleaded by the respondent, but on the other hand RW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed any document to show that the schedule property is his father’s property and except his oral evidence, there is no document to show that his father is in possession of the petition schedule property as owner. For the same reason the evidence of RW2 who deposed in support of RW1 regarding pleaded case of the joint construction of the houses by the fathers was not relied on and held that the case of the respondent is only for the sake of plea without any substance in it and in such circumstances, the petitioners’ contention can be presumed to be true and the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between petitioners and the respondent can also be presumed. (c) With regard to the willful default in payment of rent, the Appellate Controller observed that admittedly the respondent had not paid rent and therefore, in view of the finding on the jural relationship, there was willful default in payment of rent. (d) Thus, with the above findings, the appeal was dismissed upholding the order of the Rent Controller. Against the order of the appellate Authority, this Civil Revision Petition was filed raising the following grounds: 11. X 13 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 (i) The orders of the Courts below being contrary to law and for illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. The Courts below failed to consider are wholly vitiated material irregularities and (ii) material on record in correct perspective and in the light of the principles laid down by precedents. (iii) The Courts below failed to the claim of the petitioners is the Will (Ex.P7) is only a certified copy marked subject to objection and its original and not proved in accordance with law. see that the very basis of was not filed, (iv) The Courts below failed to consider that the name of the wife of the executant of the Will is noted as 'Seetaratnam', Whereas the name of the 1 petitioner is ‘Sesharatnam’; and further, nowhere in the Will the to the property bequeathed was noted. source of title of the executant (V) When there is bona fide dispute of title Act, 1960, the Rent Controller has to establish title before even under the relegate the landlord to a civil Court, but the Courts below failed to frame an issue and no evidence was adduced, no marshalling of the same was done and no finding was recorded as to whether the denial is bona fide or not. The only ground sought to evict the respondent is default in payment of rent under the (Vi) alleged oral tenancy which was not established. (vii) The Courts below failed documentary evidence to consider oral and on record with reference to the and the admissions made merely were satisfied with pleadings of the respective parties in the cross examination, but some see that the respondent is residing ^ggestions and failed to 14 BSBJ C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 in the schedule property as a owner and erroneously presumed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant by wrongly placing burden of proof. The reasoning adopted is unsound, (viii) The Courts below failed to consider the other cases pending. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the grounds noted above with more emphasis on the discrepancy in the name of the wife of the executant of the Will; the name of the 1 petitioner and also the proof of the Will; the title to the property; the jural relationship and appreciation of the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent herein supported the orders of both Courts and opposed interference in the orders as there is no illegality or material irregularity. He further submitted that the scope of jurisdiction in a revision is narrower that an appeal and reappreciation of evidence cannot be done. 12. St As rightly contended, in a revision petition, evidence cannot be appreciated like in an appeal. Unless the Appellate Controller exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with some material irregularity apparent on the face of the record. 13. 14. Along with the appeal, a petition in I.A.No.422 of 2020 was filed in R.C.A.No.16 of 2018 under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC to receive additional evidence of a copy of the proceedings in S.A.No.809 of 2006 downloaded from the website of this Court to establish the status of the case in O.S.No.116 of 1994. Since the petition was dismissed by the appellate authority, C.R.P.No.763 of 2022 was filed and the same was heard along with this revision petition and is dismissed. 15 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 15. The appellate authority has exhaustively dealt with the evidence of the witnesses for both parties on proof of the Will and opined that it was proved. While appreciating the evidence not only the evidence in chief examination but the evidence in cross examination was also considered and observed that as against the evidence placed by the petitioners, there is no contrary evidence placed by the respondent. In so far as non-production of the original of Ex.P.7 is concerned, it also dealt with and stated that the original document is in another suit. The question of bona fides of dispute of title was also dealt with by framing a specific question and answering in detail. Since the appellate authority is satisfied with the evidence lead by the petitioners to establish the case pleaded by them, it was observed that the respondent failed to prove the pleaded case with evidence. Therefore, the case pleaded by both parties and the evidence lead by them in support thereof was examined and then came to the above said conclusions. So, it is not correct to state that there is no proper appreciation of evidence or that the contentions of the parties were not properly dealt by the Appellate Controller. The question of jural relationship was also decided basing on the legal principles and the evidence on record. In view of the relationship concluded, the default in payment of rent automatically follows in view of the plea taken denying the existence of the relationship itself. Not only the decisions cited by both parties, some more decisions relevant to the point in controversy have been discussed by the appellate authority. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the decisions cited were not appreciated by the appellate authority. This Court does not see any illegality in application of the principles of law or appreciation of evidence or irregularity in considering the material on record. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision. was •s. 16 BSB,J C.R.P.No.759 of 2022 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Court of Rent Controller cum Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kakinada. 2. The Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority Cum Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kakinada. 3. One CC to SRI. VV L N SARMA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. N SIVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three C.D Copies. SSL TAC HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.NO. 759 OF 2022 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED.