LexSTATE OF A.P. & ORS. versus D. RAGHUKUL PERSHAD (D} BY LRS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 6 S.C.R. 1176 STATE OF A.P. & ORS. v. 0. RAGHUKUL PERSHAD (D} BY LRS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2012) AUGUST 8, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction - Suit for ejectment and C resumption of possession of/and filed by respondents on the ground that appellant-tenant failed to pay rent from 1986 - Plea of appellant in written statement that suit land actually belonged to him and the lease deed was executed and rent was paid to respondents by mistake of fact - Trial court . o decreed suit for eviction after recording finding that the appellants had failed to prove the title to the land - First appellate court and High Court upheld the decision of trial court - On appeal, held: Although plea was raised by appellants that the execution of lease deed as well as E payment of rent pursuant to the lease deed were under mistake of fact, no issue as such was framed by trial Court on whether the lease deed was executed by mistake of fact - This issue was an issue of fact but as the issue was not framed, parties could not adduce evidence and no finding as F such was recorded by trial Court on the said issue - Hence, this Court is not in a position to consider the argument of the appellants that the lease deed was executed and the rent was paid by mistake of fact - It is well settled that the tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the G landlord's title however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surrendered possession by surrender to his landlord - Although, there are some excwitions to this general rule, none of the exceptions were established by the appellants in this case - Therefore, appellants who were the H 1176 STATE OF A.P. & ORS. v. D. RAGHUKUL PERSHAD 1177 (D) BY LRS & ORS. tenants of the respondents would have to surrender A possession to the respondents before they can challenge the title of the respondents - In the plaint as framed by respondents in the instant case, the relief of eviction against the appellants was not based on the title of the respondents - Although an averment was made in the plaint that B respondents were owners of the suit land, no relief for declaration of title as such was claimed by the respondents - Only the relief of eviction was sought in the plaint on the ground that the lease had not been renewed after 1986 and the rent had not been paid since 1986- Therefore, this being c not a suit of declaration of title and recovery of possession but only a suit for eviction, trial Court, first appellate court and High Court were not called upon to decide the question of title - The findings of courts below on title is, therefore, set aside, but the decree for eviction is maintained - The appellf!nts are 0 directed to vacate the suit land within six months - Suit, if any, filed by the appellants for declaration of title and consequential relief cannot be entertained by the court unless the appellants first vacate and handover possession to the respondents. D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagdish 1987(4) SCC 424: 1988 (1) SCR 145 - relied on. Venkata Chetty v. Aiyanna Gounden AIR 1917 Madras 789 - referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1917 Madras 789 1988 (1) SCR 145 referred to relied on Para 4 Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.11.2009 of the High E F G H 1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in S.A. No. 270 of 2009. B c P.S. Narasimha, C.K. Sucharita, P. Parmeshwar, K., Sriram P., Vishnu Shankar Jain for the Appellants. M.L. Verma, venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, Satya Mirta, Prabhakar Parnam, T. Kanaka Durga for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The facts briefly are that the respondents herein filed OS No. 2379of1990 in the Court of 5th Assistant Civil Judge, City o Civil Court, Hyderabad against the appellants no. 1 to 4 for ejectment and resumption of possession of the suit land. The case of the respondents in the plaint was that the appellants had taken lease of the suit land from their common ancestor late Shri Dwaraka Pershad who had purchased the suit land E from Nawab Raisyar Bahadur. The further case of the respondents in the plaint was that as the appellants fail~~ to pay any rent from 1986 and renewed the lease after 1986, the res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.