ORDER
V. Eswaraiah, J.
1 The petitioners, in all the CRPs., are the tenants and each tenant is in occupation of one room of the building bearing No. 7-9-9 situated at Mallimanugulavari Veedhi, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. The respondent, who is the landlord, in all the C.R.Ps., is one and the same person, namely, Golla Lakshmana Rao.
2. The respondent, in all the CRPs., filed eviction petitions in R.C.C. Nos. 1 to 6 of 1994 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, seeking eviction of the petitioners on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and personal requirement of the said building. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, dismissed R.C.C. Nos. 1 to 6 of 1994, through separate orders, dated 11-7-2003. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed R.C.A. Nos. 2 to 7 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, allowed R.C.A. Nos. 2 to 7 of 2003, through separate orders, dated 13-7-2006, directing the petitioners to vacate from the petition schedule premises within two months and handover the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. Aggrieved/by the same, the petitioners-tenants filed this civil revision petitions.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as tenants and landlord.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the tenants submits that the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the denial of title is bonafide and the alleged adoption and the ownership in respect of the said property has not been established. More so, the earlier eviction proceedings, which were initiated by the alleged adoptive mother of the landlord, in which the landlord came on record as the legal representative of Golla Parvathamma, were dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the alleged adoption was not established and the title of the property and succession to the property by the landlord was not established, which were confirmed by the lower appellate Court and finally by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2640 of 1998 and batch, dated 29-3-2001. Therefore, without establishing the title by the landlord in an appropriate civil Court, the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenants on the selfsame grounds stating that he is the adoptive son of Golla Parvathamma and that he has got title to the property and, therefore, the present RCCs., are barred by res judicata.
5. On the other hand, Smt. V. Dyumani, the learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, submits that though the factum of adoption has been proved by adducing cogent and relevant oral and documentary evidence, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, failed to consider the same in view of the findings in the earlier eviction petitions and the observations of this Court. Therefore, the lower appellate Court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly held that the adoption was proved and the landlord has got title to the property and, therefore, he is entitled to seek eviction of the tenants.
6. To consider the said rival contentions, the following points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has been established?
2. Whether the denial of title is bona fide?
3. Whether there was any wilful default in payment of rents, as alleged in the eviction petitions?
4. Whether the said premises is bona fidely required for the personal occupation of the landlord?
7. Before going into the merits of the case, it is just and proper to refer the pleadings of the respective parties.
8. It is the case of the landlord that he filed eviction petitions in R.C.C. Nos. 1 to 6 of 1994 on 1-3-1994 against the tenants, who are in occupation of each room, in the premises bearing No. 7-9-9 situated at Mallimanugulavari Veedhi, Anakapalli, Visakapatnam District, alleging that he is the absolute owner of the said building and the said building consists of six portions and each of the tenants is in occupation of one room and the monthly rent payable by each of the tenants varies from Rs. 65/- to Rs. 125/-. Originally, the entire building belonged to Golla Neelayya, Golla Parvathamma and Paluri Venkatarathnam. Golla Neelayya and Golla Parvathamma are the adoptive parents of the landlord (Golla Lakshmanarao). The said Paluri Venkataratnam is the maternal grandmother of the landlord. The landlord's natural mother is Kolla Ammajamma. The landlord's adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma and Kolla Ammajamma are biological sisters. The landlord's maternal grandmother died and consequently the landlord's adoptive parents succeeded to the entire property. After the death of Golla Neelayya, the landlord and his adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma succeeded to the property. The property was leased out to the tenants by the landlord and his adoptive mother - Golla Parvathamma.
9. The landlord's adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma originally filed R.C.C. Nos.10 to 15 of 1986 against the tenants for eviction. The landlord came on record as legal representative of Golla Parvathamma. The tenants contested the same on the ground that the landlord has no title and the said contention of the tenants is false and untenable. The landlord is the adoptive son of Golla Neelayya and Golla Parvathamma. Even otherwise, as per Hindu Law, Golla Lakshmana Rao - landlord is the only legal heir of Golla Parvathamma. Therefore, he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises. But, unfortunately, the earlier R.C.C. Nos.10 to 15 of 1986 were dismissed. Against which, R.C.A.Nos.2 to 7 of 1993 were filed and the same were pending at the time of the filing of the present RCCs. The tenants used to pay rents regularly to his adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma. But, after her death, the tenants paid the rents till March, 1993 to the landlord and failed to pay the rents from April, 1993 till the date of filing of RCCs. on 1-3-1994. The tenants committed wilful default in payment of rents for ten months. The said premises is required for personal occupation of the landlord and his family, as the landlord wants to stay and intends to do business in the said petition schedule premises. The denial of title by the tenants, knowing fully well, that the landlord is a title-holder, is not bona fide and as such, they are liable to be evicted on the said ground also. The said building is very old one and it was constructed more than 50 years ago and it requires repairs and renovation. Accordingly, the said eviction petitions have been filed seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises and to handover vacant possession of the same to the landlord.
10. The tenants filed their respective counters taking similar pleas stating that the landlord's adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma W/o. Neelayya earlier filed R.C.C. Nos. 10 to 15 of 1986 against the tenants and the said property was given on lease by Golla Parvathamma. Subsequent to filing of the said RCCs., Golla Parvathamma died and the present landlord Golla Lakshmana Rao came on record with fraud. On enquiry of main RCCs., the Court dismissed the RCCs. Even though, the landlord is not the legal heir of the deceased Golla Parvathamma, he filed the present RCCs. Therefore, it amounts to res judicata.
11. It is further stated that the petition schedule premises was leased out by Golla Parvathamma in favour of the tenants. After the death of Golla Parvathamma, the landlord could not prove his adoption and other particulars in the earlier RCCs. and therefore, the Rent Controller, in the earlier proceedings, found that Golla Lakshmana Rao is not the legal heir or the adoptive son of the deceased Golla Parvathamma and accordingly dismissed the said RCCs. The R.C.A. Nos. 2 to 7 of 1993, which are filed by the landlord are pending. Therefore, the present eviction petitions are not maintainable. The landlord is having no right in the said petition schedule premises and he cannot seek eviction of the tenants, even for the personal requirement or for any other purpose. The landlord has failed to prove that he is the legal heir of the deceased Golla Parvathamma. So, on that ground, the tenants are entitled to continue, until the correct legal heir of the deceased Golla Parvathamma is established by the competent Civil Court.
12. It is further stated that the landlord never demanded the tenants to vacate from the petition schedule premises because he is having no right in the petition schedule premises. It is stated that the tenants are sending every month rent to the Advocate of the landlord, according to the order of the Court. But, after the death of Golla Parvathamma, the Court gave a finding that the landlord is not the legal heir of the deceased Golla Parvathamma. As such, the tenants gave a registered lawyer's notice to the Advocate of Golla Parvathamma stating that the rents of the building are being deposited in the bank, until the correct legal heir of the deceased Golla Parvathamma is established by the competent civil Court. Therefore, the present eviction petitions are not maintainable.
13. The landlord-Golla Lakshmana Rao was examined as PW1 and narrated the facts of the eviction petitions and further stated that he is only the legal heir of Golla Parvathamma. He being the adoptive son of Golla Parvathamma and Golla Neelayya, he is the legal heir of his adoptive mother as per the Hindu Succession Act. His natural mother also died long back. The earlier eviction petitions were dismissed and the matters are pending before this Court. In fact, the tenants paid the rents to him even after the death of his adopted mother till March, 1993. Thereafter, they committed wilful default in payment of rents, in spite of demands. The said premises is required for his personal requirement. His sons attained the age of marriage and they intend to stay in the said building and intend to do business. His adoptive parents got educated him and also performed his marriage and he used to live with them till their death and the properties are devolved on him. His adoptive parents also got a house at Visakhapatnam, which is also devolved on him and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He filed an application for Succession Certificate at Visakhapatnam Court and the Court granted Succession Certificate in his favour. Except himself, none others have any right, title or possession to the petition schedule premises. There are no other claimants for the properties of his adoptive parents, except himself. Himself and his adoptive mother jointly sold the vacant site, which was in front of the petition schedule premises to PW. 4 - Grandhi Subrahm and the extract of the same is Ex. A-1 - Sale Deed, dated 3-1-1986. Ex. A-2 is the Succession Certificate in S.O.P. No. 14 of 1994 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam. The tenants are denying his title with a mala fide intention in order to avoid payment of rents and that there are no bona fides on their part in denying the title. Earlier, RCCs. were dismissed only on the ground of non-filing of Ex. A-2 - Succession Certificate and also Ex. A-1 - Sale Deed. Ex. A-3 is the enumerator slip issued by the enumerator on 6-7-1995, furnishing the names of voters bearing Door No. 23-22-5 in III Ward, Visakhapatnam. Ex. A-4 is the invitation card for adoption of landlord, which was got printed by his adoptive father Golla Neelayya. Ex. A-5 is the order of Commissioner of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, dated 25-5-1989, transferring the house of Golla Neelayya in his name. Ex. A-6 is the ration card issued by the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam, bearing Shop No. 480, stands in his name.
14. In the cross-examination, it is stated that earlier eviction petitions were dismissed on the ground that the landlord has not proved that he is the legal heir of Golla Parvathamma, for non-filing of Ex. A-2 - Succession Certificate and also in view of the fact that the matters are still pending in this Court. The suggestion that, as per the direction of the Court in the year 1997, the tenants are depositing the rents is denied. It is admitted that he has not filed any civil suit for declaration as per the directions in the earlier R.C.As. The suggestion that he obtained Succession Certificate for collecting the rents only is denied. The suggestion that all the documents, which are filed by him, are fabricated for the purpose of his plea except Succession Certificate, are denied.
15. PW. 2, who is the natural father of the said Golla Lakshmana Rao (PW 1), deposed that PW. 1 was given in adoption by him to his co-brother Golla Neelayya. PW. 1 was given in adoption when he was aged about 12 or 13 years. Himself and his wife gave adoption of PW. 1 to the adoptive parents Golla Parvathamma and Golla Neelayya, after due process. In the presence of purohit, they handed over PW. 1 to the adoptive parents. In turn, the adoptive parents accepted the said adoption and since then, PW. 1 has been residing with his adoptive parents. The adoptive parents only got educated PW. 1 and performed his marriage and he has been enjoying the properties of his adoptive parents. PW. 2 has begotten seven sons and three daughters. In the cross-examination, the suggestion that PW. 1 was not the adoptive son, is denied. The suggestion that there is no registered deed of adoption and the suggestion that Golla Parvathamma died leaving behind her legal heir i.e., daughter, is denied. The further suggestion that PW. 1 was not given in adoption and the alleged adoption is a story, is denied.
16. PW.3, who is known to PW. 1, deposed that PW. 1 was given in adoption by natural parents to the adoptive parents in the presence of purohit and the elders. Thus, the adoptive parents accepted the adoption. The adoption function was held with grand gala (mangalvajyam). He identified the invitation card Ex. A-4. In the cross-examination, the suggestions made by the tenants that PW. 1 was not the adoptive son and that the adoptive parents did not get him educated or performed his marriage, are all denied.
17. PW.4, who purchased the site from PW. 1 and Golla Parvathamma, deposed that he purchased the property from PW. 1 and his adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma vide registered sale deed, dated 3-1-1986, which is marked as Ex. A-1. The first seller is Golla Parvathamma, W/o. late Neelayya and the second seller is Golla Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Neelayya, the landlord herein. The property purchased by him was in possession and enjoyment of PW. 1 and after purchase of the said property, he is making use of the same for Yoga Centre.
18. On behalf of the tenants, each of the tenants was examined as RW. 1 and similarly deposed stating that earlier RCCs., filed in the year 1986 were dismissed. Against which, RCAs. 2 to 7 of 1993 were filed and the same were also dismissed. Against which, the landlord filed CRPs., which are pending before this Court and the present RCCs. are not maintainable. It is stated that they have been depositing the rents into the Court, as per the Court directions in I.A. No. 65 of 1995. Ex. B-1 is the certified copy of the decree and order in the earlier eviction proceedings, dated 30-4-1993. Ex. B-2 is the certified copy of decree and order in RCAs., dated 16-4-1996. In the cross-examination, it is stated that they are not paying the rents to the property holder, but they used to deposit the rents into the Court as per the orders of the Court. It is stated that Golla Parvathamma used to collect the rents from them and except the landlord (Golla Lakshmana Rao), none other claims any right or title to the property. They do not know whether Golla Parvathamma died during the pendency of the earlier RCCs, which were filed in the year 1986. Soon after demise of Golla Parvathamma, they used to pay the rents for sometime to the Advocate of PW. 1 and later they used to deposit the rents into the Court, as per the orders of the Court. But, they have not filed the proof of payment deposited into the Court. The tenants have admitted that PW. 1 and Golla Parvathamma sold the vacant site in front of the petition schedule premises to PW. 4, who is running Yoga Centre. The natural mother of the landlord and Golla Parvathamma are biological sisters. There is no enmity or dispute between Kolla Subba Rao and Golla Parvathamma. They do not know whether the said Golla Lakshmana Rao was taken in adoption by Golla Parvathamma. The suggestion that they have committed wilful default in payment of rents from April, 1993 onwards till the date of filing of RCCs, was denied.
19. There is no dispute that Ex. A-1 Sale Deed, dated 3-1-1986, was executed by PW.1 - Golla Lakshmana Rao and his adoptive mother in favour of PW. 4 in respect of a site, which is in front of the petition schedule property. The said fact was also known to the tenants. Ex. A-2 is a Succession Certificate in S.O.P. No. 14 of 1994, dated 9-11-1994, for recovery of certain debts from the tenants and others. Ex. A-3 is the voters' list, dated 6-7-1995 in respect of the house bearing No. 23-22-5, Visakhapatnam, Municipal Ward No. 3, wherein the names of PW. 1 - Golla Lakshmana Rao and his wife and his sons were shown. As against the father's name of PW. 1, the name of G. Neelayya was mentioned. Ex. A-4 is the invitation card for the adoption function to be held on 26-6-1959. Ex. A-5 is the Order of the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, dated 25-5-1989 transferring the house premises bearing No. 3853 of G. Neelayya in the name of the landlord. Ex. A-6 is the ration card in respect of the family of PW. 1 at Visakhapatnam house bearing No. 23-22-5. Ex. A-7 is the decree in O.S. No. 57 of 2001, dated 4-2-2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, filed by PW. 1 and his three sons and one daughter against 17 defendants for declaration of the landlord's title to the plaint schedule property bearing No. 7-9-99 i.e., petition schedule property covered by Assessment No. 4846/6 and the said suit was decreed holding that the landlord has got title to the petition schedule property.
20. Ex. B-1 is the order in the earlier eviction petition filed by Golla Parvathamma, wherein the landlord was impleaded as the legal representative of Golla Parvathamma.
21. A perusal of Ex. B-1 goes to show that none of the documents i.e., Exs. A-1 to A-7 were filed in the earlier eviction petitions.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller, under earlier eviction proceedings, which were filed in the year 1986, held that the landlord herein was impleaded as legal representative of Golla Parvathamma, without filing any document in proof of his contention that he was the adoptive son of the said Golla Parvathamma. At least, Succession Certificate is also not filed to accept the so-called adoption of the landlord by the adoptive mother Golla Parvathamma. Therefore, in the absence of filing any scrap of paper to show that he is the adoptive son of Golla Neelaiah and Golla Parvathamma, the version of the said Golla Lakshmana Rao, who came on record as legal representative, cannot be accepted.
23. In view of the absence of documentary evidence, the said RCCs. were dismissed, which were upheld by the lower appellate Court as well as by this Court, much subsequent to filing of the present RCCs.
24. No doubt, this Court in the earlier round of litigation, upheld the dismissal of the eviction petitions filed by the adoptive mother of the landlord herein and after the death of adoptive mother, the present landlord came on record and this Court observed that it is only after such a declaration that the landlord herein is the adoptive son of Golla Neelayya, the landlord herein can proceed for eviction or for rents or for any other relief, to which, he is entitled to.
25. I am of the opinion that those observations are not a declaration or a judgment declaring that the landlord is not entitled to file any eviction petition without there being any declaration that he is the successor of Golla Parvathamma. What was decided by the Rent Controller in the earlier proceedings under Exs. B-1 and B-2 was only confirmed by this Court. Admittedly, in the earlier eviction proceedings the landlord did not file any of the aforesaid documents, i.e., Exs. A-1 to A-7. The said documents go to show that the landlord is the adoptive son of Golla Neelayya and Golla Parvathamma.
26. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, having examined the oral and documentary evidence, erroneously came to the conclusion that in view of the observations made by this Court, he cannot decide the prima facie title of the landlord and the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenants.
27. I am of the opinion that the said approach of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, is erroneous and contrary to law because the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenants between Golla Parvathamma and tenants is not at all disputed. The payment of rents is also not disputed. In fact, it is specifically pleaded by the landlord that after the death of Golla Parvathamma, the tenants paid rents upto March, 1993 and they have failed to pay rents from April, 1993 till the date of filing of R.C.Cs. on 1-3-1994 for a period of ten months. The said statement was not at all denied either in the counter or any evidence has been adduced stating that they have not paid the rents prior to the aforesaid ten months before filing of R.C.Cs. Admittedly, they have paid the ten months rents only pursuant to the interim orders during the pendency of R.C.Cs, so as to enable them to contest the eviction proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rents from April, 1993 to February, 1994 have been paid prior to filing of the eviction petitions. Therefore, the subsequent deposit of the rents will not absolve the tenants from the wilful default committed by them.
28. As per Section 2(vi) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act'), 'Landlord' means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were letout to a tenant.
29. Admittedly, the building was letout to the tenants by Golla Parvathamma and the rents have been paid by them to her during her lifetime. The specific averment made in the eviction petitions that the rents even after the death of Golla Parvathamma, have been paid to the landlord, has not been denied. If that be so, it cannot be said that Golla Lakshmana Rao is not the landlord within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Act.
30. Insofar as the tenants are concerned, admittedly, they are the tenants as defined under Section 2(ix) of the Act.
31. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the earlier proceedings, the Rent Controller did not consider at all the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant, but, it has only considered whether the landlord is a legal representative or legal heir of Golla Parvathamma, who got impleaded himself after the death of Parvathamma, is not proved and dismissed the earlier RCCs. only on the ground that no scrap of paper has been filed in support of the claim of the landlord that he is the adoptive son or the legal heir of Golla Parvathamma.
32. Whereas, in the instant case, the landlord filed Ex. A-1-Sale Deed jointly executed by him and his adoptive mother, which has been described that the landlord herein is the son of Neelayya i.e., the husband of Golla Parvathamma and that fact was known to the tenants, as admitted by them and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any dispute with regard to the fact that the landlord herein was residing and enjoying the properties along with his adoptive parents as their adoptive son. The other documents filed by the landlord i.e., Succession Certificate under Ex. A-2 and declaration of title under Ex. A-7 have not been questioned by anybody and there is no claim from any third party, even the same has been accepted by the tenants. In fact, the voters list-Ex. A-3 and the transfer of name in the property of Visakhapatnam from his adoptive father to the landlord herein under Ex. A-5 and that the landlord is residing and having ration card in respect of the house owned by the adoptive father under Ex. A-6 coupled with the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, who had witnessed the adoption, go to show that there was any dispute by any third party regarding the adoption of the landlord herein.
33. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, the tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 or Sections 12 and 13 of the Act.
34. Under Proviso to Section 10(1) of the Act, where the tenant, denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil Court and the civil Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned under Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the Act, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.
35. Once the Rent Controller records a finding that the denial of title is bonafide, then the civil Court is entitled to decide the title as well as ordering eviction on all the grounds mentioned in Section 10 of the Act. Once the Rent Controller decides that the denial of title is bona fide, the landlord is not only entitled to file a Civil Suit for declaration of title but also seeking eviction of the tenant on all the grounds that have been enumerated under Section 10 of the Act, and in that case, the civil Court is entitled to decide the comprehensive suit while declaring the title as well as recording the findings on the grounds mentioned under Section 10 of the Act.
36. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the denial of title is bona fide?
37. To entertain any eviction petition under the Act, there must be jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Even, if the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant is not established, no proceedings can be initiated under the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the essential factor that has to be established by any landlord or tenant to seek any proceedings under the Act, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has to be established. But, only in case of dispute or doubt as to the ownership and the claims of the different landlords, then only it is open for the tenants to take appropriate proceedings under Section 9 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court, which will be subject to the declaration of title by the competent Court.
38. But, in the instant case, absolutely, there was no bona fide doubt or dispute with regard to the person, who is entitled to receive the rent, as it was stated that after the death of Golla Parvathamma, the landlord used to receive the rents and he received the rents till March, 1993. Therefore, there was no doubt or dispute with regard to the entitlement of the landlord herein to receive the rents. Even with regard to the title also, in the absence of any claim by any third party, I am of the opinion that the denial of title is not bonafide and, therefore, the tenants are liable to be evicted even under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act.
39. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly allowed R.C.A. Nos. 2 to 7 of 2003, by ordering eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders so as to call for interference by this Court.
40. The civil revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.