Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5654/2008

AHMAD @ MOHD. AHMAD  APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

MOHD. OSMAN RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5655/2008

MEER SATTAR ALI (Dead) by Lrs. APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

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

Page 2

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 this Court.

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

Page 3

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

Page 4

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

Page 5

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

Page 6

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 appellant-tenant.   

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

Page 7

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 Court.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

………………….........................J.               [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]  

NEW DELHI; Dated:  MARCH 30, 2017.