Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: s. 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a) – Eviction of tenant – Original owner of the property leased out the property to the predecessor in interest of the appellants and they were paying rent to the owner – Case of the respondent that his father had purchased the said property vide registered sale deed – Respondent filed petition for eviction of tenant-appellant no. 2 and 3 and others from shop on the ground of non-payment/default in payment of rent, tenant’s denial of the title of the landlord not being bona fide, and landlord’s right to be put in the possession of property for his own business use – Appellants denied the title of the respondent as also claimed title over the schedule property contending that they purchased the same from the original owner – However, the tenant directed to vacate the schedule property – Said order upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Not called for – When the respondent, as landlord, claimed eviction on the ground of tenants’ denial of his title over the petition schedule property and to establish such denial as not being bonafide produced its registered sale deed, the appellants and their predecessors-in-interest could not justify the denial merely by asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, had purchased it for a valid consideration, without producing any supporting material(s) admissible in evidence – In respect of the sale of an immovable property, worth value which makes the sale deed compulsorily registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid registered document – Concurrent findings of the courts below that the title of the respondent was malafidely denied by the appellants is the rightful conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence obtained in this case – Nothing that would establish nonconsideration of any material or consideration of irrelevant material, to arrive at the finding that the requirement to get vacant possession of the petition schedule property of the respondent is malafide – In view thereof, no reason to hold that such findings are infected with perversity or manifest injustice.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the respondent, as landlord, claimed eviction on the ground of tenants’ denial of his title over the petition schedule property and to establish such denial as not being bonafide produced its registered sale deed, the appellants and their predecessors—in-interest could not justify the denial merely by asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, had purchased it for a valid consideration of Rs.15,000/- in the year 1985, without producing any supporting material(s) admissible in evidence. This is because in respect of the sale of an immovable property, worth value which makes the sale deed compulsorily registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid registered document. Section 9 of the Transfer of the Property Act states that a transfer of property can be made without writing in every case in which writing is not expressly required by law. But then, as per Section 54 of the TP Act, the sale of immovable property of a value of Rupees one hundred and upwards can be made only under a registered instrument. Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 speaks of documents of which registration is compulsory. As per Clause
(b) of sub-Section (1) thereof non-testamentary instruments which of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, shall be compulsorily registered. [Para 18, 19][436-E-H; 437-E-F]
1.2 The oral evidence adduced by the respondent is to the effect that his father had purchased the petition schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 27.06.1985. Per contra, on behalf of the appellants what is pleaded and argued is that the petition schedule property was purchased by their predecessors-ininterest, from the very same vendor in the year 1985, for a valid consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. It is in this context that the sale deed would act as a sure and clear pointer to where the truth lies. The indisputable and undisputed fact is that except the oral assertation of purchase of the petition schedule property by B not even a scrap of paper to support the same was produced on behalf of the appellants, either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority. [Para 20 & 22][438-A-B, G-H]
1.3 The institution and dismissal of the said original suit brought out in evidence was considered by the Rent Controller Court only to answer the point as to whether the respondent was malafidely denying the title of the respondent herein/the petitioner therein. After such consideration based on the oral and documentary evidence before it, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondents therein were denying the title of the respondent herein malafidely. [Para 22][439-F]
1.4 The Appellate Authority in taking into account the factum of raising the plea of adverse possession by the appellants and/or their predecessors-in-interest for the limited purpose of looking into the question of mala fides in the denial of title of the respondent herein over the petition schedule property. Indeed, it was so noted to support and sustain the finding of the rent controller that the tenants were denying the title of the respondent without bona fides. The concurrent findings of the courts below on the issue that the title of the respondent was malafidely denied by the appellants is the rightful conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence obtained in this case and is not infected with perversity. It calls for no interference. Nothing was brought to the attention that would establish non-consideration of any material or consideration of irrelevant material, to arrive at the finding that the requirement to get vacant possession of the petition schedule property of the respondent is malafide. In short, on a careful scanning of the concurrent findings on all issues, there is no reason to hold that such findings are infected with perversity or manifest injustice. [Para 25, 26, 28][441-F-G; 442D; 443-F]
1.5 Though, the appellants, by virtue of their denial of title of the respondent do not really deserve grant of time to vacate the petition schedule property, two months’ time is granted from the date of the judgment to the appellants to handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent, in the interest of justice. [Para 29][443-G-H] Kurapati Venkata Mallayyaand Anr. v. Thondepu
Ramaswami And Co. & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 818 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 995; Mohanlal Sohanlal v. Pannalal
Jankidas AIR 1948 Bom 133; Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal & Anr. (1989) 3 SCC 99 : [1989] 2 SCR 250; Narasamma & Ors. v. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Thr. LRs (2020) 15 SCC 218 : [2020] 7 SCR 528; C. Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 55 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.