MAJATI SUBBARAO versus P.K.K. KRISHNA RAO (DECEASED) BY LRS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 19-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MAJATI SUBBARAO 
v. 
P.K.K. KRISHNA RAO (DECEASED) BY LRS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 
[M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960--
Sections 10, 12 and 13-Eviction of tenant on ground of denial of 
landlords title-When arises. 
.A 
B 
The appellant-tenant was in occupation of the premises and carry-
C 
ing on business. The original respondent who was the owner of the said 
premises filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of 
bona fide requirement as he wanted to set up his eldest son in business 
by starting a photo studio in the said premises. The appellant disputed 
the correctness of the claim and alleged that the property in which the 
said premises were situated was the absolute endowed property of D 
which the original respondent was the de facto trustee and as such he 
had no personal or proprietary interest in the said property to evict the 
appellant on the ground of personal use and occupation. The respon-
dent asserted that he' was the absolute owner of the said premises. The 
Rent Controller passed a decree for eviction on the ground that the 
bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord wrs made out and E 
also on the ground that the appellant had denied the title of the respon-
dent which denial was not bona fide. The appellant filed an appeal 
before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed upholding the 
order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The appellant prefer-
red a revision petition to the High Court and a Single Judge of the High 
Court also upheld. the order of eviction. The appellant came in an 
F 
appeal to this Court by special leave. 
It was contended for the appellant that in orde_r to constitute a 
ground for eviction the denial of title must be anterior to the filing of the 
eviction petition and a denial of title in the course of eviction petition 
would not constitute a ground for eviction. The contention on behalf of G 
the respondent was that the denial of the landlord's title was· not the 
only ground pleaded for eviction but it was also contended that the 
appellant was liable to be evicted as the respondent wanted the said 
premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
H 
153 
A 
B 
c 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: The A.P. Rent Act was enacted with a view to consolidate 
the law relating to regulation of leasing of buildings, control of rent 
thereof and prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants in the State 
of Andhra Pradesh. Section IO of the A.P. Rent Act deals with eviction 
of tenants. Sub-Section (I) of that section prohibits eviction of tenants 
except in accordance with the provisions of that section or sections 12 
and 13 of that Act. [156D-E] 
It is well settled that the Court hearing a suit or appeal can 
take into account events which are subsequent to the filing of the 
suit in order to give appropriate relief or mould the relief appropria-
tely. [157F] 
Kundan Mal v. Gurudutta, Judgments today (1989) 1 S.C. 147, 
not applicable. 
The landlord can recover possession of the property only on one 
or more of the grounds enacted in the relevant section of the Rent Acts. 
D Even after the termination of the contractual tenancy the landlord 
under the definitions of the terms landlord and tenant contained in the 
Rent Acts, remains a landlord and the tenant remains a tenant, because 
of the express provision made in the enactments that a tenant means or 
includes 'a person continuing in possession after the termination of the 
! E 
F 
G 
tenancy in his favour'. Yet another important feature of the Rent Acts 
is that either by way of a non-obstante clause or by necessary implica-
tion these enactments have done away with the law contained in section 
108 of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with rights and liabilities of 
the lessor and the lessee. [158D-E] 
Maharaja of Jaypore v. Rukmani Pattamahdevi, 46 I.A. 109; 
A.I.R. [1919] P.C. 1 and V. Dhanapal Chattiar. v. Yesodai Ammal, 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 334, referred to. 
Sada Ram and Others v. Gajjan Shiama, A.I.R. 1970 Punjab & 
Haryana Sll; Shiv Prashad v. Smt. Shila Rani, A.I.R. 1974 H.P. 22 
and Machavaram Venkate Narayana Rao v. Sarvepalli Narayane Rao 
Sarada and another, [1978] l R.C.J. 368, relied upon. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2732 
of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.1980 of the Andhra 
H Pradesh High C

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