DEVA SAHAYAM (D) BY LRS. versus P. SAVITHRAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 16-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEVA SAHA YAM (D) BY LRS. 
A 
V. 
P. SA VITHRAMMA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.) 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction-A.?. Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction 
Control Act, 1960-Sec. 10(1), 10(2)(vij-Eviction on the ground of denial of 
title-Held, Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the relief by way of C 
counter claim in a suit for specific performance. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-0rder Vll Rule 7 CPC-Suit for specific 
performance and declaration by tenant against a landlord-Counter claim by 
the landlord for the relief of possession on ground of denial of title-No 
finding in any rent control proceeding about bona fide of the claim-Held, D 
Civil Court has no jurisdiction 
Appellant was a tenant of the predecessors' in interest of Respondent 
Nos. I to 4. Under an oral agreement of sale entered into by and between 
the Appellant and the respondents the deed of sale was submitted for 
approval of the Ceiling Authorities. The factum of grant of approval of E 
the said deed of sale was not conveyed and when he came to learn about 
it a suit for specific performance of the contract was filed. Respondent 
alienated the suit property in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Appellant 
filed an application for amendment of plaint questioning the alienation 
and praying for declaration that the deed of sale in favour of Respondent F 
Nos. 6 and 7 herein is null and void. A second written statement was filed 
wherein a counter-claim was made, for the relief of possession. 
The Trial Court did not frame any specific issues about counter-
claim. The Trial Judge proceeded to consider the issue as regard the 
counter-claim and rejecting the contention made by the plaintiff that the G 
court has no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim, held that as the 
Appellant had denied the title of the landlord, the civil court has 
jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim of the defendants in tetms of 
Order VII, Rule 7 of the code of Civil Procedure. 
255 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court rejected the claim of the Appellant as regard decree 
for specific performance of contract and held that having set up a false 
plea of agreement and totally in regard to his tenancy, it cannot be said 
that the remedy of the defendants is to approach the authorities under 
the provisions of Rent Control Act. 
B 
Before this Court Appellant contended that as no issue had been 
framed as regard the counter-claim, no decree thereupon could have been 
passed, and in any view of the matter the Civil Court has no jurisdiction 
to determine the same. Respondent No. 6 contended that despite the 
provisions contained in A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control 
C Act, 1960, the Civil Court had the requisite jurisdiction to determine the 
counter-claim in view of the fact that the tenant cannot be permitted to 
approbate and reprobate at the same time, that the Appellant in the plaint 
has claimed possession in his capacity as a vendee and not as a tenant and, 
thus, a different relationship between the parties having come into being, 
the relationship of the landlord and tenant did not revive automatically 
D upon his failure to establish his claim, that when the plaintiff sets up title 
in himself which is inconsistent with his plea of tenancy and if he, having 
not succeeded in establishing his former claim, cannot now turn round 
and contend that he should be granted the relief to continue to be in 
possession of the suit premises as if he is a tenant and that although two 
inconsistent defences are permissible, such defences should not be mutually 
E destructive. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 contended that father of original 
defendant filed an eviction petition in the court of Rent Controller against 
the Appellant herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears 
of rent wherein the Appellant herein in his written statement raised a plea 
of the agreement for sale claiming a title in himself. 
F 
Allowing the Appeal partly, this Court 
HELD: 1. A suit for eviction under the said Act would be before a 
Rent Controller and not before a Civil Court. In terms of proviso 
appended to Section 10(1) of the said Act before the parties to pursue their 
remedies in a civil court a Rent Controller is required to arrive at a finding 
G as regard the bone fide or otherwise of the claim of the tenant. There 
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Respondents could have 
maintain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.