HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI versus BHUPENDRA N. PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 28-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARSHA V ARDHAN CHOKKANI 
v. 
BHUPENDRA N. PATEL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.) 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: 
S.10-Shop-Eviction of tenant-Original landlady gave shop on rent C 
to appellant-Landlady permiued appellant to carry on partnership business 
in the premises-Premises sold-Original landlady allorning the tenancy of 
the firm-Firm paying rent to purchasers-Later purchasers filing eviction 
petition against appellant-Appellant contesting the petition on the ground_ 
that he was not the tenant and since the firm was tenant; petition was not D 
maintainable-Principal Rent Controller dismissing eviction petition-Held, 
by conduct of parties, firm had already become tenant of the premises before 
ils purchase-After purchase of the premises, the purchasers continued to 
receive rent from the firm and issued receipts in its favour-Eviction petition 
against appellant was not maintainable. 
S.22-Revision-Power of High Court-Held, power of High Court u/ 
s 22 is wider than the power u/s 115, CPC-But powers of revisional court 
cannot be equated with power of appellate court-Situations wherein 
interference by High Court with finding of/act would be justified, explained-
E 
ln the instant case the appellate authority, after exhaustive consideration has F 
rightly confirmed finding recorded by Principal Rent Controller that the firm, 
, and not the appellant, was tenant of premises, which finding did not warrant 
interference by High Court-Order of High Court set aside-Eviction petition 
dismissed. 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6846 of G 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19. 7.99 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2236 of 1997. 
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Ms. Anu Mehta for S.K. Mehta for the H 
133 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A Appellant. 
L.N. Raq, Jayanth Muthraj, K. Sudharshan and G.R.K. Prasad for S.U.K. 
Sagar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
This appeal from the judgment of the High Court ofJudicature. Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 2236of1997 dated July 19, 1999 is by 
the tenant. The respondents are the landlords of a non-residential building 
bearing No. 4-6-244 (Old No. 1883) Subhas Road, Subrie Street, Secunderabad 
which was earlier owned by one Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma who entered into 
C an agreement of lease in regard to the ground floor of that building (for short, 
'the premises') with the appellant. She sold the premises in favour of 
respondent No. 1 and one late Babu Lal Patel whose legal representatives are 
respondent Nos. 2 to 7. After the sale Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma sent a letter 
attorning the tenancy ofM/s. Brij Mohan Chokkhani and Sons (for short, 'the 
·firm') in favour ofrespondent Nos. 2 to 7. Thereafter the rent was being paid 
D by the firm to the said respondents and receipts therefor were being issued 
in favour of the firm. While so the respondents filed eviction petition in the 
Court of the Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad against the appellant , 
on various grounds under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & 
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for short, 'the Act'). The appellant contested the 
E eviction petition, inter a/ia, on the plea that he was not the tenant but the firm 
was the tenant of the premises, therefore, the eviction petition of the appellant 
was not maintainable. The learned Principal Rent Controller held that the 
firm was the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition on December 31, 
1992. The respondents challenged the order of the learned Principal Rent 
Controller in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at 
p 
Hyderabad (the Appellate Authority under the Act). That finding of the learned 
Principal Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the 
appeal was dismissed on February 26, 1997. Dissatisfied with the said 
judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents filed C.R.P. No. 2236 
of 1997 in the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed 
the civil revision petition by order dated July 19, 1999. It is against that order 
G that the appellant is before us in appeal by special leave. 
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant 
contends that even before the attornment of the tenancy of the premises, in 
favour of the respondents, the firm alone was the tenant;

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