Navabharath Educational Committee vs P. Venkateswarlu and Others

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed u/s 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petitioner is the tenant. The Landlord filed R.C.C. No. 38 of 1984 for eviction of the tenant and recovery of possession, on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for 63 months and also denied the title of the landlord. Both the tribunals found that the petitioner failed to pay rent for 63 months from 1-3-1979 and a sum of Rs. 22,050/- is due and payable by way of arrears of rent. It is also further found that the petitioner had denied title of the landlord claiming right of permanent tenancy.

Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has informed the fourth respondent-P. Dakshnamurthy, who is acting on behalf of the landlord that he had spent more than three lakhs rupees for improvement of the property and the fourth respondent expressed his willingness that the rents could be adjusted towards the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is also his further contention that the landlord who is staying in America was informed by two letters about the same, but there is no response and as such, it must be deemed that there is implied consent by the landlord.

Both the Tribunals on a consideration of the relevant material on record, came to the conclusion that if really the fourth respondent has given consent, there is no need for the petitioner to address letters to the first respondent seeking his permission and as such, in the absence of any express permission from the first respondent, the petitioner had acted unilaterally and took the risk in spending the amount in this regard. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded as no tenant has a right to spend the rent for purposes other than one for which consent is accorded by the landlord. Absence of any specific response from the landlord cannot be deemed to be implied consent. There must be tacit or express consent from the landlord before the rent is diverted. Even otherwise, there are no circumstances pointing that there is any kind of implied consent by the landlord in this case. Hence, I agree with the finding of the Tribunals below that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for 63 months as alleged.

Sri Chandramouli, submits that both the Tribunals have erred in thinking that there is denial of title. The contention of the petitioner is that the property was inherited by late Seetha from her parents, and therefore, after her death the property would devolve upon her parents u/s 15(2)(a) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the first respondent cannot claim rent in the absence of an order or Succession Certificate. In fact, in this case, respondents 2 and 3 are the children of late Seetha. Therefore, even assuming that the property belonged to late Seetha, respondents 2 and 3 first of all, are entitled to the same on the death of their mother. Apart from that, there is also no proof to show that the property was inherited by Seetha from her parents, and as such, there is no basis for the petitioner to raise the contention that respondent No. 1, or respondents 2 and 3 are not the landlords. There are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in raising this plea. There is also no proof that the respondents have agreed to lease out the property for 25 years. So, for all these reasons, I am in entire agreement with the Tribunals below that the petitioner has denied the title of the landlords.

Sri Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, inasmuch as the first respondent filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of rent and later withdrew the same in respect of the relief of eviction. According to the learned counsel, withdrawal of suit for eviction and filing an application under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 cannot be permitted. He relies on Atma Ram Mittal Vs. Ishwar Singh Punia, in support of his contention. What all is observed by the Supreme Court in the said decision is that the rights of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of the suit, and therefore, merely because 10 years period has elapsed, pending the suit, the Civil Court''s jurisdiction over the matter does not cease and the suit can still be prosecuted. It is nowhere stated that the suit cannot be withdrawn or a petition under Rent Control Act cannot be filed for the same relief. It is not possible to accept that the Civil Court can grant any such permission for the landlord to invoke the provisions under Rent Control Act. When the landlord has right to seek relief under the Rent Control Act, mere withdrawal of the suit, in my view, does not preclude him from filing a petition for eviction. Therefore, this submission also, in my view, has no force.

The last submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the building has been let out for Educational Institution which is recognised by the Government, an order of eviction cannot be passed. First of all, in this case there is no proof that the Institution is recognised by the Government. It is an unaided Institution. No doubt, it is having registration. Even assuming that the Institution has been recognised by the Government, the same is not binding on the landlord without his consent. When the lease period expires and there is no extension of lease or when it is lawfully terminated, the recognition if any should end with the end of the lease or with the termination of the lease and under any circumstances, it cannot have the effect of extending the lease in the absence of consent by the landlord.

For all these reasons, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the petitioner is granted six months time for vacating the premises.