Vijaya Kumar Jaiswal S/O. Satyanarayana Pershad and anr. Vs. Smt. Mempathi Bai W/O. Late Raghuveer Dayal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
tenancy - eviction - sections 5, 6, 7, 9, 9 (3), 11, 12, 13 and 16 of andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent & eviction) control act, section 2 (4) of andhra pradesh escheats and bona vacantia act, 1974, section 68 of evidence act, section 63 of indian succession act and andhra pradesh escheats and bona vacantia rules - eviction petition challenged on ground that ownership of landlord being doubtful - fact suggests landlord as owner of land by virtue of sale deed - eviction to be granted. - - the learned principal rent controller had recorded reasons in detail commencing from paras 13 to 20. in fact, the learned rent controller at para 18 had specified several grounds on which the controller was satisfied that the denial of title of the landlords by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant cannot be said to be bona fide. in my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the appellate authority in this regard cannot be sustained for the main reason that clear evidence of pw-1 well supported by pw-2 and pw-3 is available on record whereas except the evidence of rw-1 there is no other evidence forthcoming on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. especially in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned principal rent controller and the appellate authority as well, i am thoroughly satisfied that the appellate authority had erred in allowing the appeals and reversing the well considered common order made by the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad.orderp.s. narayana, j. 1. vijay kumar jaiswal and prakash chandra jaiswal, respondents 1 and 2 in r.c.no.722/90 on the file of the principal rent controller, hyderabad and respondents 1 and 2 in r.a.no.640/94 on the file of the chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad/appellate authority had preferred c.r.p.no.25/97. likewise, the said parties, petitioners in r.c.no.1146/98 on the file of principal rent controller, hyderabad and respondents in r.a.no.641/94 had preferred c.r.p.no.26/97 and since both these matters were disposed of by a common order both by the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad and also the learned chief judge, city small causes court/appellate authority, these matters are being disposed of by a common order.2. the revision petitioners herein filed r.c.no.1146/88 praying for eviction of the tenant raghuveer dayal on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and personal requirement and during the pendency of the eviction petition, the said raghurveer dayal died and hence respondents 2 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives by orders made in i.a.no.631/89 dated 20-2-1990. smt.mempathi bai and others, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant raghuveer dayal filed r.c.no.722/90 under section 9(3) of a.p. buildings (lease, rent & eviction) control act, in short hereinafter referred to as 'act' for the purpose of convenience praying for permission to deposit rents into court on the ground that there is a bona fide doubt as to the ownership of the property which is in their occupation. the learned rent controller had arrived at a conclusion that the denial of title by raghuveer dayal and the legal heirs of raghuveer dayal cannot be said to be bona fide denial and inasmuch as on this ground alone they are liable to be evicted, the other grounds need not be gone into and observing so r.c.no.1146/88 filed by the landlords for eviction was allowed and r.c.no.722/90 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant praying for permission to deposit rents was dismissed. aggrieved by the same, r.a.no.640/94 and r.a.no.641/84 were filed on the file of chief judge, city small causes court at hyderabad/appellate authority under the act and the appellate authority had set-aside the order of eviction made in r.c.no.1146/88 and had allowed r.c.no.722/90 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant praying for permission to deposit rents. aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are preferred. 3. in r.c.no.722/90 on the file of principal rent controller, hyderabad, the a.p. escheat department, represented by the collector, hyderabad district was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the light of the specific stand taken by them that jagadeeswaramma died issueless and hence the estate of jagadeeswaramma became the escheat property of the government. 4. though several attempts were made, the contesting respondents could not be served and hence publication was ordered and the same was duly published. in the light of the contentions raised by the respondents in these civil revision petitions, this court appointed sri sudheer kumar as amicus curiae to assist the court. 5. sri venugopal, counsel representing the revision petitioners, hereinafter referred to as 'landlords' for the purpose of convenience, made the following submissions. the counsel had traced the historical background and also had drawn the attention of this court that the vendors of the landlords pw-2 and pw-3 had claimed under two wills and there was compromise in the litigation and consequent thereupon the subject matter had been transferred by virtue of sale deed. the counsel also would maintain that clear findings had been recorded by the learned rent controller relating to all the contentions and the same was reversed by the appellate authority on unsustainable grounds. the counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the findings recorded by the learned rent controller and also the appellate authority. the counsel also would maintain that when once the compromise had been recorded and in pursuance thereof the transfer by way of sale deed already had been effected, the appellate authority had totally erred in recording findings that such aspects had not been proved since a tenant or legal representatives of such tenant cannot be permitted to raise such pleas at all. the counsel also had contended that the finding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant recorded by the appellate authority is definitely unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. the learned counsel also had made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the ground of escheat. the counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, section 9 of the act is not applicable at all and it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rents. at any rate, the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to certain writ proceedings i.e., w.p.no.14633/89.6. sri sudheer kumar, the learned amicus curiae appointed by this court had explained in detail the findings recorded by the learned rent controller and also by the appellate authority and had pointed out the grounds raised in r.c.no.1146/88 praying for eviction and also had pointed out that on the sole ground of denial of title only, eviction was ordered by the learned rent controller which had been reversed by the appellate authority. the counsel no doubt submitted that a careful reading of all the facts and circumstances would go to show that the ground of escheat raised by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in r.c.no.722/90 cannot be sustained. the counsel also would point out that the original landlord smt.jagadeeswaramma filed r.c.no.33/78 and the said r.c. in fact was dismissed. the learned amicus curiae also had explained the scope and ambit of the different grounds raised in r.c.no.1146/88 and also in r.c.no.722/90. the learned counsel also had explained in detail the findings recorded on the plea that this property is escheat property of the government. the counsel also had placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard. 7. heard the counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad and also the learned chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad/appellate authority under the act. 8. as already referred to supra, r.c.no.1146/88 was filed for eviction on grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and personal requirement and during the pendency of the r.c., the tenant raghuveer dayal died and his legal representatives were brought on record. the landlords/revision petitioners pleaded in r.c.no.1146/88 that they are the absolute owners of h.no.1-6-894, 1-6-895 and 1-6-896 of musheerabad, hyderabad having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 2-3-1987 executed by the owners thereof at the time of sale. it was also pleaded that raghuveer dayal, the original tenant and the other co-tenants also informed about the said sale and the same was attorned and the tenants were required to pay rents to the landlords and the letter of attornment dated 1-6-1981 was addressed by vendor's counsel to raghuveer dayal and his co-tenant and raghurveer dayal was a tenant in a portion of the said house on a monthly rent of rs.145/- exclusive of electricity and water charges and the rent is payable on or before 5th day of following month and raghuveer dayal had not paid rents from 1-1-1976 onwards and hence the said tenant as liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. it was also pleaded that the landlords have been residing in a house at secunderabad on rent and they do not have any other house in the twin cities and at the time of sale, their vendors have delivered vacant possession of the house but the above said two rooms are not contiguous and they are separated by tenant's portion and one of the said rooms is in a dilapidated condition and therefore they had not occupied the above two rooms and they require the premises in occupation of tenant/raghuveer dayal also for their occupation and their requirement is bona fide. it was further pleaded that raghuveer dayal sub-let the premises to his brother-in-law ram avtar alias ram swaroop and hence the said tenant is liable to be evicted on the said ground also. 9. as already referred to supra, the original tenant died and the legal representatives were brought on record who had denied almost all the allegations in the eviction petition. it was pleaded that the premises was taken on a monthly rent of rs.60/- from one jagadeeswaramma and the said jagadeeswaramma filed r.c.no.33/78 which was dismissed. it was also pleaded that raghuveer dayal, the original tenant was depositing rents to the credit of r.c.no.33/78 during the lifetime of jagadeeswaramma and the said jagadeeswaramma died issueless. it was specifically pleaded that the revision petitioners/landlords are not the owners of the property and that bogus documents were created for the purpose of grabbing the property of jagadeeswaramma, and the original landlady jagadeeswaramma had left no heirs at all and it was pleaded that the alleged attornment of tenancy notice dated 1-6-1987 was issued without any right or title to the property in question and hence there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. the allegation in relation to sub-letting also was denied.10. the legal representatives of the deceased raghuveer dayal, the original tenant, filed r.c.no.722/90 on the file of principal rent controller, hyderabad with the following allegations. almost all the factual aspects in the counter filed by them in r.c.no.1146/88 had been repeated. it was also specifically pleaded that the original landlady jagadeeswaramma died issueless and since no legal heirs were left behind her to inherit the property, the estate of jagadeeswaramma becomes escheat property of the government and the government becomes the owner of the property and therefore the government is made as a party. it was pleaded that there is a bonafide doubt as to the ownership of the property after the demise of jageeswaramma and inasmuch as there are rival claims between respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent therein, the petition was filed. 11. the landlords had taken the same stand which they had taken in the eviction petition referred to supra. 12. the 3rd respondent/government had pleaded that on enquiry it is revealed that the premises bearing no.1-6-894 and 1-6-895 stood in the name of one erramma, mother of jagadeeswaramma in municipal records and that the names of respondents 1 and 2 are shown against the suit premises in the municipal records from 1987 onwards. it is also stated that jagadeeswaramma died issueless and there was nobody to succeed to her property and therefore the schedule property is escheat property and vests with the government. it was further pleaded that at the time of local inspection it was stated by the local people that smt.b.dhanunjaya w/o.dr.basavaiah is distantly related to smt.jagadeeswaramma and respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that they are the owners of the suit property. 13. as per orders in i.a.no.551/92, r.c.no.1146/88 and r.c.no.722/90 were jointly tried and evidence was recorded in r.c.no.1146/88. pw-1 to pw-3 and rw-1 and rw-2 were examined and exs.p-1 to p-23 and exs.r-1 to r-8 and exs.x-1 and x-2 were marked. pw-1 is the 1st petitioner in the eviction petition, one of the landlords. pw-2 and pw-3 are the vendors who had deposed in detail how the landlords are entitled to the relief of eviction. rw-1 is the 3rd respondent in r.c.no.1146/88 and the mandal revenue officer was examined as rw-2 on behalf of 3rd respondent in r.c.no.722/90. hence, it is clear that except the evidence of rw-1, there is no other evidence available on record on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. it is needless to say that rw-2 was thought of only to substantiate the ground of escheat. the learned principal rent controller had recorded reasons in detail commencing from paras 13 to 20. in fact, the learned rent controller at para 18 had specified several grounds on which the controller was satisfied that the denial of title of the landlords by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant cannot be said to be bona fide. the aspect of escheat also had been discussed at length and the said contention as negatived. the appellate authority had recorded reasons at paras 12 to 22 after framing point for consideration at para 11. the findings recorded by the appellate authority are as hereunder :there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. there is no denial of title, but only what had been prayed for by the legal representatives of the tenant was in relation to the clarification of the title. the lease was a composite lease and hence the rent controller had no jurisdiction to entertain such prayer. 14. it is needless to say that the discussion in relation to the composite lease at para 21 of the judgment of the appellate authority definitely cannot be sustained. the question of non-maintainability of the eviction petition under the provisions of the act cannot detain this court any longer in the light of the decision of the apex court in firm panjumal daulatram vs . sakhi gopal, : [1977]3scr767 and susheela bai vs. chandulal t. parikh, 1997(2) alt 496. the same view was expressed in yeshpal roy vs . g. dinesh kumar , : 1993(2)alt484 godavari metal rolling mills vs . d.s.v.a. prakash, : 1997(2)alt496 and kommuri hazarathaiah v. tadikamalla anantha laxmi. hence, the same need not be discussed further. 15. it is not in controversy that jagadeeswaramma had let out the property in question to raghuveer dayal and both the original landlady and the original tenant are no more and the legal representatives of the original tenant are disputing the title of the present purchasers who are the landlords. it is the specific case of the landlords that they had purchased the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 2-3-1987 from pw-2 and pw-3 and pw-2 and pw-3 had deposed that they had executed the sale deed in favour of pw-1 and another and had narrated all the factual aspects in relation thereto. it is pertinent to note that the eviction petition was ordered on the ground of denial of title by the legal representatives of the tenant not being bona fide. it may also be relevant to note that the government in the counter filed in r.c.no.722/90 had taken a stand that at the time of local inspection, the local people had stated that smt.b.dhanunjaya, w/o.dr.basavaiah is distantly related to jagadeeswaramma. the said smt.b.dhanunjaya is one of the vendors of pw-1 and another. pw-2 also deposed that smt.b.dhanunjaya is related to the original landlady jagadeeswaramma. merely because jagadeeswaramma died issueless, it cannot be said that the property is escheat property and is vested in government. this is definitely a very peculiar and an extreme stand taken by the legal representatives of the tenant. 16. the a.p. escheats and bona vacantia act 1974, act 35 of 1974, is an act to provide for determination, custody and disposal of property vested in the state of andhra pradesh by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia for want of rightful owner and of unclaimed property and for matters connected therewith. section 2(4) of the said act defines eacheat as :'in this act, unless the context otherwise requires, -eacheat means any property the owner of which dies intestate and without leaving legal heir.'17. section 3 deals with ownership of property accruing by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia. section 5 of the said act deals with local officers. section 6 of the said act deals with powers of disposal of escheat or bona vacantia. section 7 deals with inquiry relating to escheat or bona vacantia by local officer. section 11 of the said act deals with procedure for declaring property to be escheat or bona vacantia. section 12 deals with publication of declaration. section 13 deals with immovable property escheated to government not to be sold until twelve years after such escheat. section 16 of the said act deals with power to make rules and under the said rule making power, a.p. escheats and bona vacantia rules 1975 had been framed. it is needless to say that from the evidence of rw-2 it is clear that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the said act had not been followed and at any rate though the vendors who sold the property had claimed under two different sales it is clear that the litigation was compromised and hence it cannot be said that jagadeeswaramma died intestate and it is too much on the part of the legal representatives of the tenant to take such a stand and hence definitely the denial of title in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be bona fide denial and hence the learned principal rent controller had recorded several reasons in detail and ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that this ground would be sufficient for ordering eviction and hence had not adverted to the other grounds. in my considered opinion, the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad had arrived at the correct conclusion in this regard. no doubt, a serious attempt was made to show that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. it is pertinent to note that the tenants in the premises were put on notice and a specific plea was taken in this regard and no doubt the denial in the counter is as vague as it can be and it is a denial only for the sake of denial and nothing more. in jalal and sons and another vs . sita bai (died) by l.rs. and others, : 2001(2)ald547 it was held :'when a will is relied on in support of the right to property, in the absence of any other will, nothing prevents the court to conclusively presume that the will is last testament of the deceased testator. it is a different thing whether the will is required to be proved or not. when the validity of the will is in question and challenged the propounder of the will is required to prove the will in accordance with section 68 of the evidence act and section 63 of the indian succession act. ordinarily, the persons with limited penumbral right to property are treated as strangers and cannot be allowed to question the validity of the will. for example, a tenant, a statutory tenant, a licensee or a person with limited right of occupation cannot question the will propounded by the beneficiary. the only exception would be when a near relative of the deceased testator who is given a limited right of vested reminder in the property who can be permitted to question the validity of the will when such person sets up absolute right in himself. the premise that law permits every stranger or a person with limited interest or limited right to possession under lease to question the will is not a sound principle of law and is fraught with illogicality and illegality. under the rent act a tenant has statutory protection of not being evicted unreasonably or without valid cause. the limited right given to tenant under the act cannot be treated as conferring a right to question the validity of the will propounded by beneficiary in whose favour the premises is bequeathed by the deceased original landlord.'18. no doubt, in the present case it was stated that two wills were executed by jagadeeswaramma but the said litigation was compromised and both of them had joined the execution of the sale deed in favour of the present landlords. in the light of the limitations placed on the defence available to either a tenant or a legal representative of a tenant by making such vague denial, it cannot be said that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant at all. in my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the appellate authority in this regard cannot be sustained for the main reason that clear evidence of pw-1 well supported by pw-2 and pw-3 is available on record whereas except the evidence of rw-1 there is no other evidence forthcoming on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. reliance also was placed on k.p. janakiram v. k. suguna bai 6 and shaik abdul shukur v. tumuluri ramavadhani, : 2001(3)alt69 . it is also in evidence that a civil suit was filed by the parties pw-2 and pw-3 praying for declaration of rights through the wills and the said suit was compromised. when in pursuance of the compromise, already a registered sale deed came into existence the finding recorded by the appellate authority that those documents were not filed into court cannot be sustained. even otherwise there is documentary evidence ex.p-1 sale deed and also ex.p-11 the prior will apart from the clear oral evidence of both pw-2 and pw-3. it is also pertinent to note that after purchase of the property, notice was issued and except vague denial relating to same, there is no specific denial and the legal representatives of the tenant had taken a stand stating that jagadeeswaramma's estate is unrepresented and hence it is escheat property and on that ground r.c.no.722/90 was filed under section 9(3) of the act and the appellate authority had drawn a distinction between denial of title and seeking clarification of title. in my considered opinion, the approach of the appellate authority is definitely totally erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the compromise between the vendors and landlords and the sale in their favour. it is also essential to note that the defence of a tenant cannot be stretched too far to such an extent so as to create serious problems and complications to the rights of the landlords. especially in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned principal rent controller and the appellate authority as well, i am thoroughly satisfied that the appellate authority had erred in allowing the appeals and reversing the well considered common order made by the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad. hence, the impugned common order made in r.a.nos.640/94 and 641/94 by the chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad is hereby set aside and the common order made in r.c.nos.722/90 and 1146/88 by the learned principal rent controller, hyderabad is hereby restored. consequently, the relief of eviction is granted on the ground of denial of title being malafide in favour of the landlords and the relief under section 9(3) of the act praying for permission to deposit rents on the ground that ownership is doubtful is hereby negatived.19. accordingly, the landlords are bound to succeed and the civil revision petitions are hereby allowed, with costs.this court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae sri sudheer kumar.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal and Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, respondents 1 and 2 in R.C.No.722/90 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and respondents 1 and 2 in R.A.No.640/94 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad/Appellate Authority had preferred C.R.P.No.25/97. Likewise, the said parties, petitioners in R.C.No.1146/98 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and respondents in R.A.No.641/94 had preferred C.R.P.No.26/97 and since both these matters were disposed of by a Common Order both by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and also the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court/Appellate Authority, these matters are being disposed of by a Common Order.

2. The Revision Petitioners herein filed R.C.No.1146/88 praying for eviction of the tenant Raghuveer Dayal on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and personal requirement and during the pendency of the eviction petition, the said Raghurveer Dayal died and hence respondents 2 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives by orders made in I.A.No.631/89 dated 20-2-1990. Smt.Mempathi Bai and others, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant Raghuveer Dayal filed R.C.No.722/90 under Section 9(3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience praying for permission to deposit rents into court on the ground that there is a bona fide doubt as to the ownership of the property which is in their occupation. The learned Rent Controller had arrived at a conclusion that the denial of title by Raghuveer Dayal and the legal heirs of Raghuveer Dayal cannot be said to be bona fide denial and inasmuch as on this ground alone they are liable to be evicted, the other grounds need not be gone into and observing so R.C.No.1146/88 filed by the landlords for eviction was allowed and R.C.No.722/90 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant praying for permission to deposit rents was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, R.A.No.640/94 and R.A.No.641/84 were filed on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad/Appellate Authority under the Act and the Appellate Authority had set-aside the order of eviction made in R.C.No.1146/88 and had allowed R.C.No.722/90 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant praying for permission to deposit rents. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.

3. In R.C.No.722/90 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the A.P. Escheat Department, represented by the Collector, Hyderabad District was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the light of the specific stand taken by them that Jagadeeswaramma died issueless and hence the estate of Jagadeeswaramma became the escheat property of the Government.

4. Though several attempts were made, the contesting respondents could not be served and hence publication was ordered and the same was duly published. In the light of the contentions raised by the respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions, this Court appointed Sri Sudheer Kumar as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

5. Sri Venugopal, Counsel representing the Revision petitioners, hereinafter referred to as 'landlords' for the purpose of convenience, made the following submissions. The Counsel had traced the historical background and also had drawn the attention of this Court that the vendors of the landlords PW-2 and PW-3 had claimed under two wills and there was compromise in the litigation and consequent thereupon the subject matter had been transferred by virtue of sale deed. The Counsel also would maintain that clear findings had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller relating to all the contentions and the same was reversed by the Appellate Authority on unsustainable grounds. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority. The Counsel also would maintain that when once the compromise had been recorded and in pursuance thereof the transfer by way of sale deed already had been effected, the Appellate Authority had totally erred in recording findings that such aspects had not been proved since a tenant or legal representatives of such tenant cannot be permitted to raise such pleas at all. The Counsel also had contended that the finding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant recorded by the Appellate Authority is definitely unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also had made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the ground of escheat. The Counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 9 of the Act is not applicable at all and it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rents. At any rate, the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain writ proceedings i.e., W.P.No.14633/89.

6. Sri Sudheer Kumar, the learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court had explained in detail the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority and had pointed out the grounds raised in R.C.No.1146/88 praying for eviction and also had pointed out that on the sole ground of denial of title only, eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller which had been reversed by the Appellate Authority. The Counsel no doubt submitted that a careful reading of all the facts and circumstances would go to show that the ground of escheat raised by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in R.C.No.722/90 cannot be sustained. The Counsel also would point out that the original landlord Smt.Jagadeeswaramma filed R.C.No.33/78 and the said R.C. in fact was dismissed. The learned amicus curiae also had explained the scope and ambit of the different grounds raised in R.C.No.1146/88 and also in R.C.No.722/90. The learned Counsel also had explained in detail the findings recorded on the plea that this property is escheat property of the Government. The Counsel also had placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

7. Heard the Counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and also the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad/Appellate Authority under the Act.

8. As already referred to supra, R.C.No.1146/88 was filed for eviction on grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and personal requirement and during the pendency of the R.C., the tenant Raghuveer Dayal died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The landlords/Revision petitioners pleaded in R.C.No.1146/88 that they are the absolute owners of H.No.1-6-894, 1-6-895 and 1-6-896 of Musheerabad, Hyderabad having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 2-3-1987 executed by the owners thereof at the time of sale. It was also pleaded that Raghuveer Dayal, the original tenant and the other co-tenants also informed about the said sale and the same was attorned and the tenants were required to pay rents to the landlords and the letter of attornment dated 1-6-1981 was addressed by vendor's counsel to Raghuveer Dayal and his co-tenant and Raghurveer Dayal was a tenant in a portion of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs.145/- exclusive of electricity and water charges and the rent is payable on or before 5th day of following month and Raghuveer Dayal had not paid rents from 1-1-1976 onwards and hence the said tenant as liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. It was also pleaded that the landlords have been residing in a house at Secunderabad on rent and they do not have any other house in the twin cities and at the time of sale, their vendors have delivered vacant possession of the house but the above said two rooms are not contiguous and they are separated by tenant's portion and one of the said rooms is in a dilapidated condition and therefore they had not occupied the above two rooms and they require the premises in occupation of tenant/Raghuveer Dayal also for their occupation and their requirement is bona fide. It was further pleaded that Raghuveer Dayal sub-let the premises to his brother-in-law Ram Avtar alias Ram Swaroop and hence the said tenant is liable to be evicted on the said ground also.

9. As already referred to supra, the original tenant died and the legal representatives were brought on record who had denied almost all the allegations in the eviction petition. It was pleaded that the premises was taken on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- from one Jagadeeswaramma and the said Jagadeeswaramma filed R.C.No.33/78 which was dismissed. It was also pleaded that Raghuveer Dayal, the original tenant was depositing rents to the credit of R.C.No.33/78 during the lifetime of Jagadeeswaramma and the said Jagadeeswaramma died issueless. It was specifically pleaded that the Revision petitioners/landlords are not the owners of the property and that bogus documents were created for the purpose of grabbing the property of Jagadeeswaramma, and the original landlady Jagadeeswaramma had left no heirs at all and it was pleaded that the alleged attornment of tenancy notice dated 1-6-1987 was issued without any right or title to the property in question and hence there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The allegation in relation to sub-letting also was denied.

10. The legal representatives of the deceased Raghuveer Dayal, the original tenant, filed R.C.No.722/90 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad with the following allegations. Almost all the factual aspects in the counter filed by them in R.C.No.1146/88 had been repeated. It was also specifically pleaded that the original landlady Jagadeeswaramma died issueless and since no legal heirs were left behind her to inherit the property, the estate of Jagadeeswaramma becomes escheat property of the Government and the Government becomes the owner of the property and therefore the Government is made as a party. It was pleaded that there is a bonafide doubt as to the ownership of the property after the demise of Jageeswaramma and inasmuch as there are rival claims between respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent therein, the petition was filed.

11. The landlords had taken the same stand which they had taken in the eviction petition referred to supra.

12. The 3rd respondent/Government had pleaded that on enquiry it is revealed that the premises bearing No.1-6-894 and 1-6-895 stood in the name of one Erramma, mother of Jagadeeswaramma in municipal records and that the names of respondents 1 and 2 are shown against the suit premises in the municipal records from 1987 onwards. It is also stated that Jagadeeswaramma died issueless and there was nobody to succeed to her property and therefore the schedule property is escheat property and vests with the Government. It was further pleaded that at the time of local inspection it was stated by the local people that Smt.B.Dhanunjaya w/o.Dr.Basavaiah is distantly related to Smt.Jagadeeswaramma and respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that they are the owners of the suit property.

13. As per orders in I.A.No.551/92, R.C.No.1146/88 and R.C.No.722/90 were jointly tried and evidence was recorded in R.C.No.1146/88. PW-1 to PW-3 and RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-23 and Exs.R-1 to R-8 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. PW-1 is the 1st petitioner in the eviction petition, one of the landlords. PW-2 and PW-3 are the vendors who had deposed in detail how the landlords are entitled to the relief of eviction. RW-1 is the 3rd respondent in R.C.No.1146/88 and the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined as RW-2 on behalf of 3rd respondent in R.C.No.722/90. Hence, it is clear that except the evidence of RW-1, there is no other evidence available on record on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. It is needless to say that RW-2 was thought of only to substantiate the ground of escheat. The learned Principal Rent Controller had recorded reasons in detail commencing from paras 13 to 20. In fact, the learned Rent Controller at para 18 had specified several grounds on which the Controller was satisfied that the denial of title of the landlords by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant cannot be said to be bona fide. The aspect of escheat also had been discussed at length and the said contention as negatived. The Appellate Authority had recorded reasons at paras 12 to 22 after framing Point for consideration at para 11. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are as hereunder :

There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There is no denial of title, but only what had been prayed for by the legal representatives of the tenant was in relation to the clarification of the title. The lease was a composite lease and hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain such prayer.

14. It is needless to say that the discussion in relation to the composite lease at para 21 of the Judgment of the Appellate Authority definitely cannot be sustained. The question of non-maintainability of the eviction petition under the provisions of the Act cannot detain this Court any longer in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Firm Panjumal Daulatram vs . Sakhi Gopal, : [1977]3SCR767 and Susheela Bai vs. Chandulal T. Parikh, 1997(2) ALT 496. The same view was expressed in Yeshpal Roy Vs . G. Dinesh Kumar , : 1993(2)ALT484 Godavari Metal Rolling Mills vs . D.S.V.A. Prakash, : 1997(2)ALT496 and Kommuri Hazarathaiah v. Tadikamalla Anantha Laxmi. Hence, the same need not be discussed further.

15. It is not in controversy that Jagadeeswaramma had let out the property in question to Raghuveer Dayal and both the original landlady and the original tenant are no more and the legal representatives of the original tenant are disputing the title of the present purchasers who are the landlords. It is the specific case of the landlords that they had purchased the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 2-3-1987 from PW-2 and PW-3 and PW-2 and PW-3 had deposed that they had executed the sale deed in favour of PW-1 and another and had narrated all the factual aspects in relation thereto. It is pertinent to note that the eviction petition was ordered on the ground of denial of title by the legal representatives of the tenant not being bona fide. It may also be relevant to note that the Government in the counter filed in R.C.No.722/90 had taken a stand that at the time of local inspection, the local people had stated that Smt.B.Dhanunjaya, w/o.Dr.Basavaiah is distantly related to Jagadeeswaramma. The said Smt.B.Dhanunjaya is one of the vendors of PW-1 and another. PW-2 also deposed that Smt.B.Dhanunjaya is related to the original landlady Jagadeeswaramma. Merely because Jagadeeswaramma died issueless, it cannot be said that the property is escheat property and is vested in Government. This is definitely a very peculiar and an extreme stand taken by the legal representatives of the tenant.

16. The A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act 1974, Act 35 of 1974, is an Act to provide for determination, custody and disposal of property vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh by escheat or lapse or as Bona Vacantia for want of rightful owner and of unclaimed property and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(4) of the said Act defines eacheat as :

'In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -eacheat means any property the owner of which dies intestate and without leaving legal heir.'

17. Section 3 deals with Ownership of property accruing by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia. Section 5 of the said Act deals with Local Officers. Section 6 of the said Act deals with Powers of disposal of escheat or bona vacantia. Section 7 deals with Inquiry relating to escheat or bona vacantia by local officer. Section 11 of the said Act deals with Procedure for declaring property to be escheat or bona vacantia. Section 12 deals with Publication of declaration. Section 13 deals with Immovable property escheated to Government not to be sold until twelve years after such escheat. Section 16 of the said Act deals with Power to make rules and under the said rule making power, A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Rules 1975 had been framed. It is needless to say that from the evidence of RW-2 it is clear that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the said Act had not been followed and at any rate though the vendors who sold the property had claimed under two different sales it is clear that the litigation was compromised and hence it cannot be said that Jagadeeswaramma died intestate and it is too much on the part of the legal representatives of the tenant to take such a stand and hence definitely the denial of title in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be bona fide denial and hence the learned Principal Rent Controller had recorded several reasons in detail and ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that this ground would be sufficient for ordering eviction and hence had not adverted to the other grounds. In my considered opinion, the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad had arrived at the correct conclusion in this regard. No doubt, a serious attempt was made to show that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the tenants in the premises were put on notice and a specific plea was taken in this regard and no doubt the denial in the counter is as vague as it can be and it is a denial only for the sake of denial and nothing more. In Jalal and Sons and Another vs . Sita Bai (Died) By L.RS. and Others, : 2001(2)ALD547 it was held :

'When a Will is relied on in support of the right to property, in the absence of any other Will, nothing prevents the Court to conclusively presume that the Will is last testament of the deceased testator. It is a different thing whether the Will is required to be proved or not. When the validity of the Will is in question and challenged the propounder of the Will is required to prove the Will in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Ordinarily, the persons with limited penumbral right to property are treated as strangers and cannot be allowed to question the validity of the Will. For example, a tenant, a statutory tenant, a licensee or a person with limited right of occupation cannot question the Will propounded by the beneficiary. The only exception would be when a near relative of the deceased testator who is given a limited right of vested reminder in the property who can be permitted to question the validity of the Will when such person sets up absolute right in himself. The premise that law permits every stranger or a person with limited interest or limited right to possession under lease to question the Will is not a sound principle of law and is fraught with illogicality and illegality. Under the Rent Act a tenant has statutory protection of not being evicted unreasonably or without valid cause. The limited right given to tenant under the Act cannot be treated as conferring a right to question the validity of the Will propounded by beneficiary in whose favour the premises is bequeathed by the deceased original landlord.'

18. No doubt, in the present case it was stated that two Wills were executed by Jagadeeswaramma but the said litigation was compromised and both of them had joined the execution of the sale deed in favour of the present landlords. In the light of the limitations placed on the defence available to either a tenant or a legal representative of a tenant by making such vague denial, it cannot be said that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant at all. In my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in this regard cannot be sustained for the main reason that clear evidence of PW-1 well supported by PW-2 and PW-3 is available on record whereas except the evidence of RW-1 there is no other evidence forthcoming on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Reliance also was placed on K.P. Janakiram v. K. Suguna Bai 6 and Shaik Abdul Shukur v. Tumuluri Ramavadhani, : 2001(3)ALT69 . It is also in evidence that a civil suit was filed by the parties PW-2 and PW-3 praying for declaration of rights through the Wills and the said suit was compromised. When in pursuance of the compromise, already a registered sale deed came into existence the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that those documents were not filed into Court cannot be sustained. Even otherwise there is documentary evidence Ex.P-1 sale deed and also Ex.P-11 the prior Will apart from the clear oral evidence of both PW-2 and PW-3. It is also pertinent to note that after purchase of the property, notice was issued and except vague denial relating to same, there is no specific denial and the legal representatives of the tenant had taken a stand stating that Jagadeeswaramma's estate is unrepresented and hence it is escheat property and on that ground R.C.No.722/90 was filed under Section 9(3) of the Act and the Appellate Authority had drawn a distinction between denial of title and seeking clarification of title. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Appellate Authority is definitely totally erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the compromise between the vendors and landlords and the sale in their favour. It is also essential to note that the defence of a tenant cannot be stretched too far to such an extent so as to create serious problems and complications to the rights of the landlords. Especially in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Principal Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well, I am thoroughly satisfied that the Appellate Authority had erred in allowing the Appeals and reversing the well considered Common Order made by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Hence, the impugned Common Order made in R.A.Nos.640/94 and 641/94 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is hereby set aside and the Common Order made in R.C.Nos.722/90 and 1146/88 by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad is hereby restored. Consequently, the relief of eviction is granted on the ground of denial of title being malafide in favour of the landlords and the relief under Section 9(3) of the Act praying for permission to deposit rents on the ground that ownership is doubtful is hereby negatived.

19. Accordingly, the landlords are bound to succeed and the Civil Revision Petitions are hereby allowed, with costs.

This Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae Sri Sudheer Kumar.