Sankara Bhaskara Mohan Kumar vs Gudivada Maruthi Madhur And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

The 1st respondent, in this appeal, is the owner of the suit schedule property, consisting of land with old terraced house bearing old D.No.7-36-29 and new D.No.7-36-8 of Tenali Town. The property is said to have been acquired by the 1st respondent, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 02.01.2015, from one Sri Ghanta Samba Siva Rao, who had leased out the property to the 2nd respondent herein. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he had purchased this property along with adjoining properties for the purposes of getting better facing to the road for his business activities which had been carried out in the adjacent property which also belongs to him.

The 1st respondent sought possession of the said property and filed O.S.No.94 of 2015, before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. In the pliant, the 1st respondent stated that the earlier owner Sri Ghanta Samba Sivarao had given the suit schedule property, on lease, to the 2nd respondent, on 01.04.1997, and the said lease had been renewed from time to time with the last renewal being from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. As the 2nd respondent, had stopped paying rent from January, 2015 onwards, and as he refused to vacate the premises even after being informed by the 1st respondent that he needed the shop for expanding his business, the suit came to be filed. It is also the contention of the 1st respondent that prior to the filing of the suit, a notice to quit the premises had been issued by his advocate, on 09.03.2015, to the 2nd respondent herein, seeking vacant possession on or before 15.04.2015 along with arrears of rent. The Appellant had also been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, as a sub tenant of the 2nd respondent.

The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.65 of 2015 seeking a permanent injunction against the 1st respondent. Both suits were taken up together. The 2nd respondent, in his written statement in O.S.No.94 of 2015 took the stand that the premises had been sub-leased in favour of the appellant herein and the same was accepted by Sri Ghanta Samba Siva Rao, the earlier owner of the property, who used to collect rents and issued receipts directly in favour of the appellant. The 2nd respondent took the stand that there was no relationship of tenant and sub-tenant between the appellant and the 2nd respondent and that the appellant was the direct tenant of Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao. The appellant also filed his written statement that the appellant was the direct tenant of the erstwhile owner and as such, there is no case for evicting the appellant from the property, by issuance of a notice, by the 1st respondent.

The trial Court, after a trial in both the suits, by a Judgment dated 04.01.2019, dismissed O.S.No.64 of 2015 and partly decreed O.S.No.94 of 2015 with a direction to the appellant and 2nd respondent to vacate the plaint schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same to the 1st respondent therein within three months. The appellant and 2nd respondent were also directed to pay damages to the 1st respondent, for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.04.2014 onwards.

The trial Court, after considering the depositions of the witnesses and the documents marked as evidence, had taken the view, that the appellant was a sub-tenant of 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent was entitled to the possession by evicting the appellant and the 2nd respondent from the property. The trial Court rejected the contentions of the appellant that the 1st respondent could have expanded his business in other shops and that he did not have any need of this property. The trial Court took the view that such contentions are irrelevant, in a suit for eviction, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the appellant herein filed A.S.No.98 of 2024 against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.94 of 2015 only. The appellate Court after considering the very same contentions raised before the trial Court had held in favour of the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal. It appears that an additional issue raised by the appellant, in the appellate Court was that the burden of proof of demonstrating the landlord-tenant relationship was on the 1st respondent. This plea was rejected by the appellate court. Further, the appellate Court also took the view that the burden of demonstrating that the appellant was a tenant of Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao was on the appellant himself and no steps were taken to discharge such a burden. On this basis, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by a Judgment, dated 25.07.2024.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Second Appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that there was a direct association between Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao, the erstwhile owner of the property and the appellant. The case of the appellant appears to be that he was direct tenant of Sri Ghanta Samba Sivarao and consequently, issuance of quit notice to the 2nd respondent and subsequent legal proceedings cannot result in his eviction as he was the tenant and there was no atornment by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao in favour of the 1st respondent.

Ex.B9 is the set of rent receipts, issued by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao and marked by the appellant. These rental receipts were issued by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao, in the name of the 2nd respondent and M/s. Mohan Ayurvedic Stores, which was the store being run by the appellant. This would go to show that the landlord-tenant relationship between Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao and the 2nd respondent continued. The said rental receipts, do not make out a case of the tenancy being transferred in favour of the appellant. Similarly, a letter, dated 09.05.1997, which was marked as Ex.A4, said to be the permission given by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao, to the 2nd respondent, permitting transfer of tenancy of the plaint schedule property to the appellant, does not show any such transfer. It is at best a letter permitting the appellant to use the premises under the lease of the 2nd respondent.

In the circumstances, this Court does not find any substantial question of law that requires to be answered by this Court and the findings of both trial Court and appellate Court also make it clear that the appellant can at best to be permitted as sub-tenant of 2nd respondent and consequently, the order of eviction passed against the appellant and the 2nd respondent does not require any interference.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.