PUWADA VENKATESWARA RAO versus CHIDAMANA VENKATA RAMANA

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 08-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
i 
PUWADA VENKATESWARA RAO 
v. 
CHIDAMANA VENKATA RAMANA 
March 8, 1976 
551 
A 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Buildinr: (Lea1·e. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 
__, 
--Ei,iction of tenant-"Alotice under s. 10 i.1sued-Whether notice under s. 106, 
Transfer of Property Act necessary. 
Evidence-Pm·ty denies 
receipt 
of notice-Production of 
post11u1n-lf 
.necessary. , 
The n:spon<lent-landlord filed a petition under s. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for the eviction of the 
appellant·tenant. There was a compromise. 
Since the tenant defaulted in 
payment of the rent thereafter, a registered notice terminating the tenancy, 
issued by the landlord, came back with an endorsement that the appellant had 
refused to accept it. 
Later. the tenant was ordered to be evicted. 
The tenant's 
t appeal to the appeilate court and then• his revision application to the 1-f.ir.h 
,Court were rejected. 
Relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision of that 
Court, the High Court held that the Act provided a self-contained procedure 
for eviction of tenants, and therefore, compliance with the provisions of s. 106, 
Transfer of Property Act was unnecessary. 
Disniissing the tenant's appeal, 
"HELD : The High Court has correctly applied the principle laid down by 
a Division Bench of that court in Ul/if!nnuna & Ors. v. S. Mohan Rao & Ors. 
[1969] An. P.R. Law Journal 351. 
[553-E] 
Raval & Co. v. K. C. Ramachandran & Ors. [19741 2 SCH. 629 @) 634 and 
c 
D 
· Shri Renz Chand v. Shrimati Shain Devi. ILR 1955 Punj. 36, referred to. 
E 
ln Manf:ilal v. Su£?an Chand Rathi rAIR 1955 SC 1011 this Court was consi-
dering an entirely different kind of provision of another Act in another State, 
f' and this case is distinguishable. 
In the context of the remedy of cjectment by 
• 
an ordinary civil suit it was held in that case that the usual notice of termination 
of tenancy under s. 106. Transfer of Property Act was necesary. 
[553F & D] 
Obiter : 
[In cases where a party denies receipt of registered notice it is not always 
necessary to produce the postman who tried to effect service. 
Denial of service 
by a party n1ay be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct. 
The decision of the Bombay High Court in NJ. 
K. Patel v. Kundan Mal 
Chamanlal and that of the Calcutta High Court in l\'irn1al Bala Devi. v. Provar 
Kumar Basu are reconcilable. 
The Calcutta High Court applied a rebuttable 
presumption under s. 114, Evidence Act. that the letter was received by the 
addressee in the ordinary course of business was refused by him beca1u;e the 
presumption from the endorsement made upon it had not been repelled by any 
evidence. 
In the Bombay case, the presumption had been held to have been 
rebutted by the evidence of the defendant on oath so that it meant that the 
plaintiff could not succeed without further evidence.] 
[554C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 1969. 
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
19-8-1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in C.R.P. 
No. 2190 of 1968.) 
P. P. Juneja, for the appellant. 
G. N. Rao, for the respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976) 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG J.-The defendant-appellant had taken a house on rent under 
a registered lease dated 10th February, 1958, on a monthly rent of\ 
Rs. 25.0 /- for a pen?<l of five years for running a lodging house. 
It J 
1s admitted by both sides that m February, 1963, the lease had expired. 
According to the landlord respondent, the 
defendant-appellant had 
contmued to hold over as a tenant "on the same terms" by which he, 
presumably, meant that it was a month to month tenancy. 
t' I 
The Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Con-
trol Act, 1960, (hereinater referred to as 'the Act') came into opera-
ton before the lease expired. 
The appellant seemed to be constantly making defaults in payments 
of rent. 
The landlord respondcn had, therefore, to file 
a suit for 
arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, which 
was decreed on 4th April, 1962. 
The landlord respondent had to file 
a petition on 21st April, 1962, under Section 10 of the Act before tile 1 
Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as 
no rent was paid from 1st December, 1961 to 31st March, 
1962. 

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