1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.962 of 2018

Between:

# Velugoti Bhaskar Sai Krishna Yachendra,

S/o. Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Sesha Vardada

Rajagopal Krishna Yachendra

… Petitioner

And

$ Kalaganda Krishna Murthy, S/o. late Lakshmaiah

…. Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 14.06.2023

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to

Law Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment?

- Yes –

-

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.962 of 2018

% 14.06.2023

# Velugoti Bhaskar Sai Krishna Yachendra,

S/o. Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Sesha Vardada

Rajagopal Krishna Yachendra

… Petitioner

And

$ Kalaganda Krishna Murthy, S/o. late Lakshmaiah

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Madhava Rao

^Counsel for Respondent: Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 2158

2. (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 78

3

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.962 of 2018

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the

judgment, dated 18.01.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.19 of 2016 on the

file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the

defacto administrator of Kasivisweswara Swamy temple and its

associate property shown in the schedule and the petitioner is the

second son of Raja VVRK Yachendra whose ancestors have built

their own above temple. The income derived from the schedule

premises is utilized for the activities of the temple and the

respondent is tenant of the schedule premises and he made a

request to the petitioner to give the schedule premises for rent and

the petitioner agreed to let out the same for rent on certain terms

and conditions, reduced to writing and the respondent gave an

undertaking on a stamped Bond paper dated 29.9.2000 under

Rental Kharanama with some terms and condi tions and executed

the same on 1.10.2000 and took possession of the schedule room

for lease and that he has ;not been paid the rents from 1.1.2005

till date in spite of several demands made by the petitioner. The

petitioner got issued a registered notice on 15.2.2005 and also

marked to the said Kareem Basha and the lease period of the

4

schedule premises expired on 31.8.2001 and the respondent has

committed willful default in paying the rents from 1.4.2004 up to

date and the petitioner got issued a registered notice and the

respondent got issued reply notice with false allegations. Hence

the petitioner preferred I.A No.16 of 2005 in RCC No.3 of 2005

before the Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri (for

short “the trial Court”), seeking for eviction of the respondent who

is a tenant in the schedule premises on the ground of willful

default of the rents and non eviction of the petition schedule

premises after lapse of lease period. After careful examination of

the entire material available on record, oral and documentary

evidence, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. and directed the

respondent to pay monthly rents of Rs.250/- from 1.4.2004 till the

date of that order. Further, the respondent was directed to vacate

the petition schedule premises from the date of that order and also

held that if the respondent failed to comply that order, the

petitioner is at liberty to proceed against the respondent through

process of law. Being not satisfied with the same, the respondent

preferred CMA No.19 of 2016 before the VII Additional District

Judge, Gudur (for short “the appellate Court”).

3. The respondent, who is the petitioner herein, filed counter

in the above CMA denying all the allegations made in the petition.

The contention of the respondent is that he is not a tenant of

5

petition schedule premises. It is also stated that no agreement as

alleged was executed by the respondent with the conditions set out

in the petition and to take possession as on the date of agreement.

Therefore the allegations raised in the petition does not arise and

hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.

4. Basing the contentions of both parties, the appellate

Court has framed the following points for consideration:

1) Whether the Rent controller is having jurisdiction to

entertain the RCC filed by the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction as prayed

for?

3) Whether the appeal is maintainable?

4) Whether there are any reasons to differ with the findings

of the Rent Controller?

5) To what relief?

5. Upon considering the material available on record, the

appellate Court held that no such objection was raised by the

respondents during the pendency of the appeal as such now the

objection raised by the other side can not be taken into

consideration. Moreover as already discussed above the petitioner

failed to prove that he is landlord of the premises and the

respondent is a tenant and the tenant fell in due of arrears of rent.

As such the deposit of arrears of rent does not arise. Hence the

court holds that the appeal is maintainable and in view of the

6

above, the appeal was allowed by the appellate Court and set aside

the order and decretal order passed by the trial Court in RCC No.3

of 2005 dated 30.11.2010. Challenging the same, the present Civil

Revision Petition came to be filed.

6. Heard Sri S. Madhava Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned couns el

appearing for the respondents.

7. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner in right

perspective and came to wrong conclusion that the petitioner failed

to prove that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises and

that he let out the same to the respondent and that there exists

landlord and tenant relationship between him and the respondent.

He further submits that the appellate Court committed grave error

in assessing the credibility of Ex.P1 Retnal Khararunama on the

ground that there is discrepancy with regard to the date of its

execution without noting that PW.1 in his evidence clearly stated

that the respondent had executed the Khararunama on 01.10.2000

and that 29.09.2000 is the date of stamp paper on which the

Khararunama was written and it is not the date of execution of the

Khararunama. He further submits that the appellate Court

erroneously observed that in the oral evidence of PWs. 2 and 3

7

there is no whisper that the contents of the Ex.P1 were read over to

the respondent and the Court failed to see that it is for RW.1 to say

whether the contents of it were not read over and explained to him

or not.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

the appellate Court in para -20 of the impugned judgment

erroneously came to the conclusion that the documents filed by the

petitioner and the evidence of PW.5 would only show that the

house bearing No.10-27A belongs to VVRK Yachandra are not

helpful to the petitioner to prove that he is the owner of the

schedule premises, but the Court did not assess the evidence of

PW.5, which is very important to decide the identity of the petition

schedule property and to prove that the petitioner is in occupation

of the schedule premises as tenant. He further submits that the

appealed Court in para-24 of the impugned judgment, referred to

the Memo dated 18.2.2000, wherein the respondent admitted that

he executed rental Khararunama, but the Court erroneously

observed that Ex.P13 is not helpful to the petitioner to prove the

relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioern and the

respondent as the rental agreement was executed on 01.10.2000,

whereas the Memo wa s filed on 18.02.2001, and irrespective of

dates of the Kharaurama and the Memo, the admission of the

respondent that he executed the Khararunama is crucial to record

8

a finding that the respondent is tenant in occupation of the petition

schedule premises. Hence, the appellate Court in its entire

judgment did not give any reasons for reversing the findings

recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, learned counsel requests

this Court to allow the revision petition.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the petitioner has no locus standi to file RCC. The petition

and Ex.P1 shows that petition schedule shop room is a new

construction and so RCC is not maintainable and Rent Controller

has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the petitioner

failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship between the

petitioner and the respondent. However, the trial Court without

considering the material on record erroneously ordered eviction

and hence the appellate Court has rightly allowe d the appeal.

Hence prayed to dismiss the present civil revision petition.

10. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in

Shaik Sadiq Ali versus Mohd. Dastagir (died) per L.Rs

1

, wherein

it was held that :

“On an examination of the entire facts in this case including the case

law cited, this Court is of the opinion that the tenant/appellant has

more than in one place admitted that he has taken the premises on

1

2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 2158

9

lease from the first respondent/landlord only. The lease deed which

has been filed is of April, 1987. From April, 1987 onwards till the time

the alleged dispute was raised by the Wakf Board, the tenant

continued to pay rent to the landlord thereby acknowledging that the

premises belong to the landlord himself.

The case law that is cited makes it very clear that the tenant cannot

deny the landlord's title. Even if the title of the landlord is defective, still

the tenant cannot deny the title. In fact, in Mohd. Shafi v. Hafeez

Mohammed (died) by LRs.7, learned single Judge clearly held that

however defective a landlord's title is, still the tenant cannot contend

that the 2008 (2) ALD 49 landlord has no right after it is established

that he was paying rent. In that case before the learned single Judge

also, the tenant raised a similar objection that the property belongs to

the Wakf Board. The contention was negatived by the learned single

Judge. Similarly, the findings in Suresh Kumar's case (6 supra) and

Rita Lal's case (5 supra) are also squarely applicable to the case on

hand……..”

11. He also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus

Dilbahar Singh

2

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that :

“….Rent Control and Eviction – Revision- Powers of Revisional

Court- Conferment of power on High Court under provisions of Rent Acts to

satisfy itself as to “legality”, “regularity” or “propriety” of decision of

appellate authorities or that it is “according to law”- Meaning and scope-

Held, consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in

revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded

by the Court/authority below are according to law and do not suffer from

any error of law-Whether or not a finding of fact recorded by the

subordinate court/tribunal is “according to law” is required to be seen on

the touchstone whether such finding of fact is based on some legal

evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or

overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from

perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross

miscarriage of justice-REvisional court may further examine whether the

order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity-

View taken in Rukmini Amma, (1993) 1 SCC 499, that would “propriety”

does not confer power upon High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to

a different conclusion but its consideration of evidence is confined to find

out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it,

affirmed-Words and Phrases-“Legality”, “regularity” and “propriety”…

C. ……Compared with appellate jurisdiction-where both expressions

“appeal” and “revision” are employed in a statute, the expression “revision”

is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that

2

(2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 78

10

conveyed by expression “appeal”-Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves

a rehearing while it is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction when the

same statute provides the remedy by way of an “appeal” and also of a

“revision”-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-S.115-Words and Phrases-“Revision”

and “appeal”.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section116 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under:

116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in

possession: No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming

through such tenant, shall during the continuance of the tenancy, be

permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning

of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who

came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in

possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a

title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.”

13. As seen from impugned judgment, this Court observed

that, according to PW.1, the respondent i.e., the petitioner herein

has executed Rental Khararunama on 01.10.2000. But as seen

from the Ex.P1 Rental Khararunama, it is dated 29.09.2000. But

in the last page of Ex.P1, it contains the signatures of the attestors

and the alleged signature of the petitioner with date 01.10.2000. It

is also observed that neither P.W.1 nor P.Ws 2 and 3 are able to

say why there is a discrepancy in Ex.P1-Retnal Khararunama

regarding the date. They failed to say as to when exactly the

Rental Khararunama was executed. On the other hand, PW.1

categorically admitted that he was not present at the time of Ex.P1.

So, he is not competent about the execution of Rental

11

Khararunama on 1.10.2000 and about execution of Ex.P1 by the

petitioner. The respondent did not choose to examine the Scribe of

document to explain the discrepancy. The petitioner has denied

execution of Ex.P1. This Court further observed that admittedly,

the PW.1 was not present at the time of Ex.P1. Moreover, as seen

from the Ex.P1, it is in the name of petitioner. Though the

respondent deposed that on 15.2.2005 he got issued a registered

legal notice demanding eviction of the respondent, no such notice

issued by the respondent was filed.

14. This Court observed in the impugned judgment at para-

20 that the respondent has executed Rental Khararumana on

01.10.2000. The Rental Khararunama is in the name of the

respondent i.e., Velugoti Bhaskara Sai Krishna yachendra. Thus,

through Ex.P23, the father of the respondent claims to be the

owner of the premises, whereas, the petition was filed by the

respondent claiming to be the owner of the premises. it is also

observed that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are contrary to each other. The

respondent filed rejoinder notice dated 25.5.2005 and the same

was marked as Ex.P5 which was issued by G.Venkata Muni (PW4)

and not by either the respondent or his father. So, Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 are contrary to each other.

15. This Court also noticed in para-21 of the impugned

judgment that, in order to prove that the respondent is the owner

12

of the premises, he filed Exs.P9 to P11 house tax receipts. They

are in the name of respondent’s father. The respondent herein also

filed Ex.P22 Two tax receipts, Ex.P23 tax demand notice, Ex.P24-

Original tax receipt and they are in the name of VVVRK Yachendra,

the father of the respondent with Door No.10-27/A. But as seen

from Ex.P1-Rental Khararunama, no door number was mentioned

in Ex.P1. This Court further observed that the respondent

examined the Municipal Commissioner as PW.5. According to him,

the shop bearing D.No.10-27A stands in the name of VVRK

Yachendra. Moreover, no door number was mentioned in Ex.P1 as

well as in the petition schedule. Thus, the documents filed by the

respondent and the evidence of PW.5 which shows that the house

bearing D.No.10-27A belongs to VVRK Yachendra are no way

helpful to the petitioner to prove that he is the owner of the

premises.

16. On perusing the above discussion, it is pertinent to

mention here that the definition under Andhra Pradesh Buildings

(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, “Landlord” means

the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is

entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own

account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and

others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator receiver or

13

guardian or who would os receive the rent or be entitled to receive

the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.

17. So, in view of the above definition, in the present case,

the petitioner is entitled to receive the rents from the respondent.

18. As could be seen from the impugned judgment at para-

24, it is observed that the respondent is canvassing that the

petitioner admitted that he is a tenant of the respondent by filing

suit in O.S No.249/1995. But as seen from ExP12 Certified copy

of judgment in O.S No.249/1995 , there is no mention that the

petitioner admitted about the ownership of the respondent. On the

other hand, the petitioner mentioned that he is the owner of the

shop room. But in the memo dated 18.2.2000 filed in the suit, he

admitted that he executed Rental Khararunama. But the Rental

Khararunama basing on which the respondent filed the petition is

dated 1.10.200.

18. This Court further observed that, PW.5 in his deposition

stated that on the basis of encroachment tax no right will be given

to the encroacher over the property. The house tax will be

collected from the owner of the property but not from the

encroacher. Further, the shop was running by the respondent by

the time, since the petition schedule property has been stands in

the name of VVRK Yachendra, as such he has been paying the

house tax for the property as per municipal records. So, when the

14

evidence of PW.5 being the Commissioner of Municipality and an

official witness having custody of the Panchayat records in respect

of the petition schedule property and the ownership particulars,

there is no need to look into other contentions raised by the

respondent who is having no right or title over the petition

schedule property as contended by him. However, for the last 16

years, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the proerpty, if

really eh would have been constructed the petition schedule

property even by encroaching the Gram Panchayat site, for that

there is no any scrap of paper or at least oral evidence to support

his contention.

19. Further, as seen from the evidence of RW.1, he

categorically admitted that nobody has given permission to him to

do his business in the petition schedule premises and carrying out

his business, he does not know the said VVRK Yachendra, the

father of the petitioner, and also he does not know the petitioner.

He has been hearing their names only on the date of giving

evidence in the court. Further, he has been residing in Venkatagiri

for the last 70 years so the trial Court came to a conclusion that

how much of untruth evidence was given in respect of the

petitioner and his forefathers. In view of the above discussion, it

clearly establishes that the respondent in order to drag on the

matter, he took this plea against the petitioner over the petition

15

schedule property, nevertheless, so far he did not pay the rents

from October 2000 by violating the terms and conditions under

Ex.P1.

20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and on perusing the entire material available on record and upon

considering the submissions of both the counsels, this Court is of

the opinion that the documents filed by the petitioner and evidence

of PW.5 would only show that the house bearing D.No.10-27A

belongs to VVRK Yachandra are not helpful to the petitioner to

prove that he is the owner of the schedule premises. But as seen

from the evidence of PW.5, it clearly establishes that the

respondent is in occupation of the schedule premises as a tenant.

Hence, this Court finds that the appellate court has not given

proper reasons for reversing the findings recorded by the trial

Court.

21. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is

of the considered view that while setting aside the impugned

judgment passed in CMA No.19 of 2016 on the file of the appellate

Court, directed the respondent to pay monthly rents as stated by

the trial Court in RCC No.3 of 2005.

22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The

impugned judgment dated 18.01.2018 passed in CMA No. 19 of

2016 on the file of the appellate Court is hereby set aside. Further,

16

the respondent is directed to pay monthly rents @ Rs.250/- from

01.04.2004 till the date of this order to the credit of RCC No.3 of

2005 and the respondent is also directed to vacate the petition

schedule premises within a period of two (02) months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as

to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 14. 06.2023.

Note: L R Copy to be marked.

(b/o)Gvl

17

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

C.R.P.No.962 of 2018

Date: 14.06.2023.

Gvl