M/S BOORUGU MAHADEV & SONS & ANR. versus SIRIGIRI NARASING RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 18-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 530 
A 
MIS BOORUGU MAHADEV & SONS & ANR. 
v. 
SIRIGIRI NARASING RAO & ORS. 
CIVIL APPEAL N0.167 OF 2007 
B 
JANUARY 18, 2016 
c 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
A.P Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 -
s. JO - Eviction petition under - Jurisdiction of High Court while 
deciding revision - Eviction petition by appellants against the 
respondents - Grounds of default in payment of monthly rent and 
denial of the appellams 'title to suit premises -Case of the respondent 
that transaction <!f sale of suit premises was mortgage and the 
borrowed amount having been paid, mortgage was redeemed -
Dismissal of eviction petition by Rent Controller - Additional Chief 
D Judge allowed appellants' appeal - However, the High Court 
allowed the respondents' revision petition - On appeal, held: First 
appellate court proper~y appreciated the facts and evidence adduced 
by the parties and on that basis recorded all necessary findings in 
favour of the appellants - High Court proceeded to decide the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
revision petition like the first appellate Court -It should have 
confined its inquiry to examine as to whether any jurisdictional 
error was committed by first appellate court while deciding the first 
appeal - Appellants ll'ere able to prove their ownership through 
their predecessor-in-title on the strength of sale deed of the suit 
premises whereas the respondents failed to prove their defence that 
the transaction was of mortgage and not an outright sale, thus, the 
first appellate court was justified in allowing the eviction petition -
Order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the first 
appellate court restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In rent control legislation, the landlord can be 
said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as 
distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the 
tenant and then to retain control, hold and nse the premises for 
himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in 
landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to 
530 
M/S BOORUGU MAHADEV & SONS v. SIRIGIRI NARASING 
531 
RAO & ORS. 
successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. [Para 19) 
A 
[537-F-GJ 
1.2 The first appellate Court properly appreciated the facts 
and evidence adduced by the parties and on that basis recorded 
all necessary findings in favour of the appellants. The High Court 
did not keep in mind the said principle of law laid down by the 
Constitution Bench in the case of * lli1ulusta11 Petroleum 
Corporation Ltd. while deciding the revision petition and 
proceeded to decide the revision petition like the first appellate 
Court. The High Court as is clear from the judgment Ilrobed in 
all the factual aspects of the case, undertook the appreciation of 
whole evidence and then reversed all the factual findings of the 
appellate court and restored the order of the Rent Controller. 
This was a jurisdictional error, which the High Court committed 
while deciding the revision petition. In other words, the High 
Court should have confined its inquiry to examine as to whether 
any jurisdictional error was committed by the first appellate con rt 
while deciding the first appeal. It was, however, not done. [Para 
20, 21[ [537-H; 538-A-D] 
1.3 The appellants were able to prove their ownership 
through their predecessor-in-title on the strength of sale deed of 
the suit premises whereas the respondents failed to prove their 
defence. Indeed, the burden being on them, it was necessary for 
the respondents .to prove that the sale in favour of tire appellants' 
predecessor-in-title of suit premises was a transaction of mortgage 
and not an outright sale. Since the respondents did not adduce 
any documentary or oral evidence to prove their defence, the 
first appellate court was justified in allowing the eviction petition. 
The evidence adduced by the appellants to prove their title over 
the suit premises was sufficient to maintain eviction petition 
against the respondents and it was, therefore, rightly accepted 
by the first a11pellate court. The first appellate court having 
recorded categorical findings that the relationship of landlord-
tenant was proved and that the respondents had committed a 
willful default in payment of monthly rent and its arrears, these 
findings were binding on the High Court while deciding the 
revision petition, more so when these findings did n

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