Khaja Qutubuddin Shareef vs M. Satyanarayana (died) and Others

S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.—This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller allowing petition filed by the respondents 2 to 5 as legal representatives, as confirmed by the appellate order. The deceased one M.Satyanarayana filed R.C.No. 332 of 1989 for eviction against the petitioner under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (for short ''the Act'') on grounds of default in payment of arrears and sub-tenancy. During the pendency of the eviction petition M. Satyanarayana died on 18-9-1993 leaving behind two sons, two daughters and pre-deceased son''s widow. The 2nd respondent who is Satyanarayana''s pre-deceased son''s wife filed I.A.No. 709 of 1993 for permission to come herself on record and prosecute eviction petition. She relied on registered Will dated 29-3-1993 said to have been executed by the deceased. As per registered Will, the house which is subject matter of eviction petition and some other properties were allotted to the respondents (widow and minor children). Counter was filed to this I.A., by the tenant wherein he denied the knowledge of the Will and that until and unless the Will is proved, the legal representatives cannot be brought on record. The Rent controller allowed the petition, overruling the objection of the tenant, taking the view that the tenant is not prejudiced by L.Rs. coming on record at this stage and it is always open to the tenant to prove during the trial of the eviction petition that the respondents are not the L.Rs. and that they are not entitled to continue the eviction proceeding. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court in R. A. (SR) No. 8612 of 1994. Against this, the present revision petition is filed.

Sri Basith Ali Yavar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under Rule 19 (3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person such question shall be referred to a Civil Court for determination. He fairly conceded that this question has not been raised in the Court below but as it is purely a question of law, he may be permitted to raise this point. According to him, as he has challenged that respondents are not legal representatives of the deceased Satyanarayana, that question has to be referred to Civil Court. On the other hand, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that this contention is academic since even de hors the will, the second respondent, in her capacity as pre-deceased sons''s widow will be one of the heirs of deceased landlord u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, that as one co-owner, she is entitled to file or prosecute the eviction petition on behalf of other co-owners and that she is entitled to come on record. He thus supports the orders of the Courts below though on this different reasoning.

I agree with the contention of Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents, that even assuming that there is no will, the first respondent as predeceased son''s widow will be one of the legal heirs, entitled to prosecute the eviction petition already filed by the deceased. Section 2(vi) of the Act which defines the term ''landlord'' thus:

"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 own 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 let to a tenant....."

The learned counsel for the respondents relies on a decision of this Court in T.S. Prakash Vs. Xavier Emmanuel and Another, wherein it was held that for filing eviction petition by one co-owner, consent of other co-owners as required u/s 10(8) of the Act, is not necessary and such consent is necessary only if it is filed as agent of other co-owners. He also relies on a decision of this Court in K. Lakshmana Rao Vs. Gulam Habeeb Khan and others, wherein it was held that even one co-owner can maintain the eviction petition against the tenant, even if other co-owners do not join. That was a case for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. If that is the position in case of eviction on ground of personal requirement, it applies with more force to the instant case which is a case of eviction on the grounds of default and sub-tenancy.

In view of these two decisions, I have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent is entitled to come on record and continue the eviction proceeding. Accordingly the orders of the Courts below are confirmed, though on different grounds. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed with costs. As it is 1989 R.C., the Rent Controller is directed to dispose it of positively by 31-12-1995.