IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5654/2008
AHMAD @ MOHD. AHMAD APPELLANT(S)
MOHD. OSMAN RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5655/2008
MEER SATTAR ALI (Dead) by Lrs. APPELLANT(S)
MOHD. OSMAN RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. The judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the High Court of
Judicature Andhra Pradesh, whereby the High Court has dismissed the
revision petitions, is assailed before this Court in these appeals.
2. The respondent herein filed Eviction Petition R.C. No.33 of 1997
before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against Ahmad alias
Mohd. Ahmad and Eviction Petition R.C. No.125 of 1997 before XVIII Junior
Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Rent Controller at Secundarabad against Meer
Sattar Ali seeking eviction of the tenants/appellants herein. Both the
eviction petitions were dismissed on the ground that the jural relationship
between the parties as landlord and tenants is not established. The Trial
Court thus, concluded that there is no question of wilful default in
payment of rent by the tenants. Incidentally, it also held that the
premises in question are not required for bona fide purpose of the landlord
i.e. for additional accommodation. The orders passed by the Principal Rent
Controller, Secunderabad were questioned by the landlord/respondent herein
in R.A. No.23 of 2001 and R.A. No.232 of 1999 on the file of Additional
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which came to be allowed.
The judgments passed by the Rent Appellate Court were affirmed by the High
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision No.2374 of 2004 and
Civil Revision No.2375 of 2004. Hence, the aggrieved tenants are before
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/tenants, taking us through the
material on record, submit that the tenants and the landlord are the
encroachers upon the Government property; and thus, the respondent herein
is not real landlord and consequently, they are not tenants under him. She
further submits that the denial of title by the tenants is bona fide; one
encroacher cannot evict another encroacher and, therefore, the orders of
the Rent Controller need to be restored by setting aside the judgments of
the Rent Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlord argued
in support of the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
4. The entire property bearing Cantonment Municipal No.1-19-1 to 13 (Old
Nos. 105 and 106) situated at Guntroop Bazar, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad
Cantonment measuring about 3000 sq. yards was purchased by the father of
the respondent-landlord under two registered sale deeds in the years 1911
and 1912. Respondent-landlord has filed the registered sale deeds Exhibits
P41 and P45 which clearly establish that the entire property of which the
demised premises is also a part, the father of the respondent-landlord was
the absolute owner. As pointed out by the first appellate court and also
the High Court, the above sale deeds and other documents were produced and
accepted as documents of title of the landlord in O.S. No. 3292 of 1979 on
the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad which suit
was filed by the landlord and other legal heirs of father of the landlord
for evicting one Mumtaz Begum and others who were in illegal occupation of
some portions of the said properties. Upon perusal of the title deeds of
the property, the said suit, O.S. No.3292 of 1979, came to be decreed in
favour of the respondent-landlord. The said judgment was also confirmed in
appeal in A.S. No.197 of 1987 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Secunderabad.
5. The ownership of the property including demised premises is also
established by the assessment records maintained by the Secunderabad
Cantonment Board. The Cantonment’s Board letter Exhibit P2 dated
21.12.1983, addressed to the mother of the respondent-landlord, mentions
that the house Nos.105 and 106 situated in the locality known as Guntroop
Bazar till 1956 which is assigned the new house No.1-19-1 to 13, is
situated in the same locality now called Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. The
premises No.1-19-1 to 13 situated in Secunderabad stands mutated in the
name of mother of the landlord as per the records of the Cantonment Board.
The mother, brother and sister of the respondent-landlord executed the
release deed as per Exhibit P15 and relinquished their rights, the portion
of the house bearing old Nos.105 and 106 (New No.1-19-1 to 13) to an extent
of 997 sq. yards, Secunderabad in favour of the landlord.
6. Insofar as the stand taken by the tenant that he is in occupation of
1-19-6, the appellant-tenant has not produced any oral or documentary
evidence to prove that the said property bearing No.1-19-6 is in his
occupation in his own right. According to respondent-landlord, the portion
occupied by the tenant forms part and parcel of house No.1-19-1 to 13. The
courts below have referred to the report of the Commissioner that the
demised premises which is in occupation of the appellant-tenant is
adjoining to the premises in occupation of the landlord and is just
separated by a wall.
6A. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the property is the
government property, PW-5 Balaiah, Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad has
stated in his evidence that after perusing the title deeds, Exhibit X2 was
issued and that the land in question along with building Municipal No.1-19-
1 to 13 Secunderabad is a private property. There are about twenty tenants
in the premises No.1-19-1 to 13 and that the respondent-landlord had been
directed to pay the arrears of tax by the Municipality is yet another
evidence establishing the ownership of the respondent-landlord.
6B. Apart from the documentary evidence, respondent-landlord had also
adduced oral evidence by examining his mother (PW-3), who has spoken about
the tenancy and quantum of rent and she used to collect rents from the
tenants. PW-4 who is in occupation of the other portion of the same
building since 1965 till 1995 and who subsequently purchased the same from
the legal heirs of M.A. Razack has also spoken about the tenancy of
7. We find that the Rent Appellate Court as well as the High Court have
rightly and concurrently concluded that the respondent-landlord has
established a jural relationship. The landlord’s mother, though was not in
the habit of issuing rent receipts, had maintained the account book Exhibit
P4, which depicts the rent paid by tenants. Based on the number of
documents filed by the respondent-landlord and the oral evidence, the High
Court as well as the first appellate court have recorded a concurrent
finding of the fact that the tenant failed to establish his ownership in
the demised premises and that there is no bona fide in the denial of
ownership of the respondent-landlord and we find no reason to interfere
with the same.
8. It is also established by the landlord, as is clear from the definite
findings of the Courts below, that he has proved his bona fide requirement
inasmuch as he needs the premises for his additional accommodation. Even
otherwise there is no serious contest on this point.
9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, these
appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hence dismissed.
10. The appellants/tenants are directed to handover peaceful and vacant
possession of the respective properties occupied by them to the
landlord/respondent herein on or before 31.12.2017 subject to filing of
usual undertaking within four weeks from today before the Registry of this
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
Dated: MARCH 30, 2017.