'1. Gadiraju Vijaya Bharathi Wo Balarama Raju v. Avula Srikanth

Avula Srikanth, S/o Krishna, Aged 39 years, occ. Printing Press R/o M.G.Road, Kothagudem Town and District. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in respect of decree and judgment in AS No. 4 of 201Son the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem dated Sth November, 2021 against decree and judgment in OS No. 6 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kothagudem dated 30th January, 2015 pending disposal of the present appeal. CIVIL REVISION PETIT]ON NO: 2126 OF 2021 Petition under Section 22 of Rent Control Act against decree and judgment dated 05-1 1-2021 in CMA No. 1 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, preferred against the decree and judgment dated 30-01-20'15 in RCC No. 3 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kothagudem. Between:

1. Gadiraju Vijaya Bharathi, Wo Balarama Raju, Aged 77 years, Occ. Susiness, R/o H.No. 1-2-54, Old Kothagudem, Kothagudem Town and District

2. GadirajuRukmangadar Raju, S/o Balarama Raju, Aged 54 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 1-2-54, Old Kothagudem, Kothagudem Town and District ...PETITIONERS AND Basavapathruni Madhavi, Wo Srinivas, Aged 39 years, Occ. House hold, Rl/o H.No. 5-1 1-171 1173, Cooli line, Kothagudem Town and District ...RESPONDENT lA No: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High.Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in respect of decree decree and judgment in CMA No. 1 of 2015on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem dated 5th November, 202'l against decree and judgment in RCC No. 3of 2013on the file of Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kothagudem dated 30th January, 2015 pending disposal ofthe present appeal. Counsel for the Appellants in S.A.No. 11 of 2022 Counsel for the Appellants in S.A.Nos. 13, 33 ot 2O22 and CRP No. 2126 of 2O21 : Sri Surendra Desai : Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K. Sita Ram The Court delivered the following: COMIIION JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI SECOND APPEAL Nos.11, 13 and 33 of2022 and CwIL REVISION PETITION No.2126 of 2O2L COMMON JUDGMENT: Since S.A.Nos.11, 13 and 33 of 2022 and C.R.P.No.2126 of 2O2l are arising out of the same issue, they were disposed of by way of this common judgment

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in S.A.No.33 of 2022 are discussed hereunder.

3. Aggrieved by the judgme nt and decree, dated O5.ll.2o2l, in A.S.No.4 of 20 15 on the fite of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, the present second appeal is preferred. A.S.No.4 of 2O15 is prelerred against the decree and judgment, dated 3O.O1.2015, in O.S.No.6 ol 20 13 on the hle of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem

4. karned counsel for appcllzurts contended that perversity/illegality is apparent- lrom the judgments of the 2 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and b^tch appellate Court and trial Court, the same gives rise to a substantial question of law and the sarne falls for considera.tion.

5. lrarned counsels have raised the other grounds to be considered for adjudication stating that the sarne xe questions of law which are as follows: 1 ll. Whether the possession is deemed to be delivered under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, when the ph_ysical and actual possession is not with the vendor? Whether, Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act can be availed by the subsequent purchaser of the property n'hen the iease is attorned by the original land lord? 'l'hc scope of the first appellate court in appreciating the orai cvidence under Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code.

6. O.S.No.6 of 2013 was filed by respondent herein (plaintiff) for eviction of appellants herein (defendants) from the plaint sc:hedule property and to put tht: respondent 1tt possession of properlr for arrears of rent from 27.06.20 I I to 3 JAK, J S.A.No.33 ot 2022 and batch,

30.11.2012 for Rs.35,84O/- and for the damages @ Rs.2,100/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till date of eviction of appellants (defendants) with costs.

7. Learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that one Shri Narige Rama-krishna Rao was the owner and possessor of RCC building bearing H.No.6-2-141 to 6-2-143, situated at MG Road, Kothagudem. That appellants are tenants of shop premises in building bearing H.No.6-2-143 (ground floor), 6-2-141 and 6-2-142 (hrst floor). Admittedly, there are no documents of. tenancy and was only an oral tenancy. It is admitted that appellants paid a rent of Rs.5,400/- per month to Narige Ramakrisha Rao

8. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that Narige Ramakrishna Rao, the original owner of the property, solcl the subject property to Avula Srikanth (respondent herein) on 27.06.201 1. Respondent further sold the property to one Babu LaI Chowdary and B.Madhavi on 2a.O6.2oll. Said conveyance of property was done by way of registercd 4 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch sale deecls. These facts are not in dispute. l,earned counsel further irrvited the attention of this Court to tJle portion of the judgment dated 05.lI.2O2l, in A.S.No.4 of 2015, wherein, it is elicited irr the cross examination of Narige Ramakrishna Rao, that the said property was a joint Hindu famiiy property and that there \ ras no partition document. That such transfer of propert)' could not have been effected by Narige Ramakrishna Rao.

9. It is further submitted that there was no information forthcoming to the appellants/defendants about the sale ol thc said property i.c., to tenants, who were running their businesses in the premises. It is further contended that subsequent purchasers never carne forward for receiving ol rents i.e.. (neithcr respondent B.Madhavi nor Babu Lal Chowdarl') It is also contended that the appellants/ defendants u'ere under the impression that property was under the possession and control of origina-l owrler Narige Ramakrishna Rao and that they liled an injunction suit vide 5 JAK, J S.A-No.33 of 2022 and batch O.S.No.310 of 2Ol1 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and the said suit came to be decreed by the competent Court with a direction not to dispossess the appellants/defendants from the property without following due process of law.

10. It is submitted that propert5r was conveyed/sold by Narige Ramakrishna Rao to respondent, and in turn, the property was conveyed/sold by respondent to B.Madhavi and Babu Lal Chowdaqr on two consecutive days i.e., 27.06.2011 and 28.06.20 11. That these sales are fictitious in nature and that they do not comply the requirements of Section 54 of the Transler of Propert5r Act, 1882. That the sale of property is intended to defeat the right of the tenants over the subject property. Relying on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is contended tlat rights 1n tenancy of immovabie property need to be transferred/conveyed and have to be explicitly expressed in the deeds. That the transactions are * -- - t'?l devoid of merits and have to be held hs invalid. €t JAK, J S..r\.No.33 of 2022 and batch

11. karned counsel for appellants/defendants relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Vidhgodhar a. Manikrao and anotherr and contended that it would be open to the a,ppellants/defendants to question the sa-le by the owner, as the transactions are fictitious in character and the real intention was to evict the appeliants/defendants. This proposition of law is canvassed by inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 18 and i9 of the said judgment.

72. Learned counsei further relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge oi the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Piarq Singh u Harbhajan Singh and. Others2 and contended that in the absence of any proof of delivery of possession, the sale of property cannot be said to have been done and that in the present case there was no delivery of possession and hence the subsequent vendors do not get the ' ( 1999) 3 SCC:t73 2 201I SCC OnLrne P&H 1O7() 7 JAK, J S.A.No.33 ol 2022 and batch right to evict the appellants/defendants from the premises in any manner whatsoever.

13. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.V.Srr,<r.mgndth.dn and Others u. E.V.Pad.rmano,bltan and. Otherss and contended that when there were occupants in the building, it is imperative that such occupants be at least made aware of the symbolic possession of the property before the sale.

14. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent transferred/conveyed the property to Babu Lal Chowdary and B.Madhavi. That the transfers are by way of registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that there was an oral partition arnong the family members of Narige Ramakrishna Rao and it was left for the wisdom of family members to question the sales and that tenant(s) have no right, whatsoever, to qr-restion whether the original owner 3 l9gO Lai'.'Suit(SC) 797 .. 8 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batc}r (Narige Ramakrishna Rao) has acquired the property by rightful means or not. l,earned counsel further invited the attention ,rf this Court to paragraph No. 15 ot judgment dated

05.71.2021, passed in A.S.No.4 of 2Ol5 and submitted that the name of Narige Ramakrishna Rao (original owner) was reflected in the municipal records as owner of the property and that the appellants/delendants filed a suit vide O.S.No.293 of 2Ol1 for mandatory injunction seeking a direction that the original owner to receive rent for the premlses.

15. It is submitted that the original owner has a bundle of rights, to deal with the subject property, by way of registered sale deeds to those who are n'illing to purchase. It is further submitted that Narige Ramakrishna Rao, received rents from appellants/defendants up to June 2Ol I and issued receipts. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to the judgment, dated 30.O1.2015, passed in O.S.No.6 of 2073 to demonstrate the lact $a* Narige Ramakrishna Rao 9 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch extended lease of the appellants/defendants for a period of 10 years up to Ol.Ol.2O21 and that the said lease period having come to ar end, the appellants/defendants have no vested right of being a tenant of the premises/propert5r and that no indulgence can be shown in permitting the appellants/ defendants to continue in the premises.

16. Learned counsei for respondent submitted that the judgment, in Vidhgadhar's case (1 supra), relied upon by learned counsel for appeilants/defendants, does not come to the rescue, as the facts in Vidhgadhar's cdse (1 supra) are not applicable to the present case. It is further submitted that 1n Vldhgadhar's cclse (1 supra), a nominal amount of Rs.5OO/ - was paid, and that it was a collusive suit. The Honble Apex Court came to the conclusion that such a nominal amount of Rs.5O0/- paid before the Sub-Registrar during the execution of the documents would establish that it was a valid documenl. 10 JAK, J S.A. No.33 of2022 and batch

17. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ambica Prasad u. Mohd. Alam and Anothel to rebut the contention of attornment raised by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. Learned counsel for respondent invited attention ol' this Court to paragraph No.15 of the said judgment. [t is pointed out that the contention, that transfer/conveyance ol rights of landlords can take effect only if the tenant attorns, has been held to be bad in law. It is further submitted that attornment by the tenant is not necessary to conlcr vaiidity on tl.e transfer/conveyance of the landlord's rigl-rts. Lastly, it is urged that Section 1O9 of the Transfer of Propertv Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act u,ere not considered in ttre said judgment, that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants are not valicl in the eye of the 1aw. 4 (20151 13 SCC 13 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch

18. l,earned counsel for respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 08.07.2016, passed in CRP.No.2S2L of 2OL6, and contended that the order in C.R.P., is on similar lines to that of the Honble Apex Court judgment in Ambica Prasad. (4 supra).

19. Heard leamed counsel, perused the record and considered the submissions.

20. The appellants/defendants (herein referred as tenants) are the tenants of RCC building bearing H.No.6-2-141 to 6-2- L43, situated at MG Road. Kothagudem (Shri Narige Ramakrishna Rao, is the owncr and possessor). Tenants were paying rent of Rs.5,4OOl- per month for the portion of the premises situated in grou r-rd floor and 1"t floor. Narige Ramakrishna Rao sold the entire building to respondent (Al'ula Srikanth) way ol registered sale deed, dated

27.06.2011. Respondent in turn sold the premises bearing No.6-2-14i and 6-2-142 to B.N{adhavi, the shop premises bearing No.6-2-143 io'gaUt, Lal Chowdary vide registered sale 1,2 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 arrd batch deeds dated 28.06.2011. Tenants of the shop premises bearing No.6-2-142 were paying a rent of Rs.2,1OO/- to Narige Ramakrishna Rao (original landlord). Respondent herein, being purchaser of the property, became the owner of the schedule property and issued a notice, dated 09.11.2012, to tenants (by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due) with regard to their tenancy, demanding rental arrears and vacant possession by end of November, 2OL2. Thcst: facts are not in dispute. 21 . Narige Ramakrishna Rao (original o$n(:r') rcceived rents up to June 2011, and the conveyance/transtirr ol the property by way of registered sale deeds was on )7.06.2011 and

28.06.2011 . On behalf of respondent, four witnesses were examined and Exs.Al to A7 were markecl ilnd on behalf of appellants/defendants Exs.Bl to 86 were nrarked and two witnesses rvere examined.

22. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale decrl. A suit filed vide O.S.No.6 of 2013 came to be decreed with costs, granting a 13 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2O22 e.r:d balch decree of eviction of appellants/defendants from the suit schedule property, the plaintifl i.e., respondent herein was entitled for recovery of a-rrears of Rs.35,840/-. Aggrieved, A.S.No.4 of 2015 was filed by appellants/defendants, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal with costs conflrming the judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2015 in O.S.No.6 of 2013, but partly modilying the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect ol damages and granting damages @ Rs.2,1O0/- per month lrom the date of the suit till eviction of the appellalts/delendants from the suit schedule property.

23. The question for consideration on the basis of submissions advanced at bar is whether the eviction of appellants/defendants lrom the schedule property needs any interference on the ground of perversitl, of the hndings of the trial Court or first Appellate Court. The trial Court and the Appellate Court held that the transfer ol the property was a bonafrde transfer and the delense set up by appellarrts/ 14 JAK, J S.A.Iftr.33 of 2022 and batch defendants cannot be sustained and directed the eviction of appellants,/defendants from the suit schedule property. Nothing is shown to this Court that there rvas non- consideratjon of any relevant material or consideration ol any irrelevant rnateria-l to arrive at a frnding. In short, on a carelul scrutiny and analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the frndings are neither perverse in nature, nor illegal, nor has any injustice been perpetrated on appe llants/ defendants.

24. Narige Ramakrishna Rao was the original owner ol the property, his name was entered in the municipal records. The appellants,/defendants a-re the tenants under an oral agreement and have been paying rent up to June 20 1 I to Narige Ramakrishna Rao. On 27.06.2011, a portion ol the premises uzas sold by Narige Ramakrishna Rao to respondent by way of registered sale deed. Further, the respondent sold the property to B. Madhavi and Babu Lal Chorvdary by rvay of registered sale deeds dated 28.06.201 1. 15 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batc}]

25. Two Sections are relevant, Sections 54 and 109 of t}re Transfer of Propert5r Act.

26. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is as below: "54. 'Sale' defined.- "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the va-lue of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovcable property takes place when the seller places the buycr, or such person as he directs, in possession of the propert!'. Contract for sale.- A contract for the sale of immoveablc property is a contract that a sale of such propcrty shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any intcrest in or charge on such property.

27. Sate of the property (propertlbs) are by way o[ registered instruments, owner of the property has transferred the </: 16 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch properties in accordance with law. There can be no grievance that sales ore mab rt.de in nature, neither there is arry finding that the sales a-re bas in law.

28. lt was contended that there was no information about the sale of propert5r and that appellants filed a suit vide O.S-No.3lO of 2011 for an injunction not to dispossess them without follou,ing due process of law. Learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the original landlord has not delivered the possession of the propert5r and the transactions were malalide in naturt: on1-r' with an intention to evict them. Section 109 of the Transler ol Property Act is as follows: " I 09. Rishts of lesso r's transferee.- lf the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferce, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall posscss all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject ro all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part lransferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason oniy of such transfer cease to be sulrject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the leasc, unless the lessee elects to treat the trirnsferee as the pcrson liable to him: Provided that the tralsferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before ttre transfer, and that, if the lcssee, not having reason to believe that such transfer t7 JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and balch has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."

29. Admittedly, Narige Ramakrishna Rao is the owner of the property and subsequently, the ownership is transferred to respondent and from respondent it is transferred to B.Madhavi arld Babu Lal Chowdary by way ol registered sale deeds. No doubt, the appellants/defendants are tenants ln respect of the suit schedule property. A perusal of Section 109 of the Transfer of PropertSr Act, it is clear that, if the iandlord tran sfers / conveys the property leased or any part of it, the trarsferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary shall possess all the rights of the landlords. Attornment by the tenants is not necessary for transfer/conveyance ol the property leased.

30. In the facts of the case, findings of the trial Court, reasoning of hrst Appeltate-Court cannot be disturbed on the r8 JAK' J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch mere premise that tenants should be made aware of the transfer/conveyance, and that there is no delivery of possession of propert5i (as contended). Such a construction of 4 Section 109 of the Transfer of Propert5r Act would render it dysfunctio nal. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality rn the ftndings of the trial Court and the reasoning/findings of the {irst Appellate Court and is not inclined to interlere or upset the lindings.

31. Having perused the record and on considering the submissions made across the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that no question ol law, much less a substartial question of lar.,n, arises. rl're appeal is devoid of mcrits and is liable to be dismissed

32. Learnr:d counsel for appellants/defendants instructions submitted that appellants/defendants be permitted to lile an application before the trial Court in execution petition pending lor time till the end of August,

2025. Request of appellants is considered and are permitted JAK, J S.A.No.33 of 2022 and batch to Iiie an application to the extent that they would vacate the premises by end of October, 2025 (i.e., by 3l"t October, 2025l,, the premises in which they have been squatting. No further time sha-ll be granted to appellants/defendants to vacate the premises. The rent amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the respective owners.

33. For reasons aforesaid, S.A.No.33 of 2022 is dismissed, (but with the observations as stated at paragraph No.32). In view of the orders passed in S.A.No.33 of 2022, S.A.Nos.11 and 13 of 2022 and C.R.P.No.2L26 of 2O2l shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand clo sed. \ ,TTRUE COPY// ECTTON OFFICER SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REG IST The Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem (with records' if any) The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem The Principal Junior Civil Judge' at Kothagudem' One CC to Sri P Rama Sharana Sharma' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K Sita Ram' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Surendra Desai' Advocate [OPUCI 1 To, 1

2. 3

4. 5 6 7 Two CD CPPqr res vH/gh HIGH COURT DATED: O3lO3l2O25 I COMMON JUDGMENT SA.No.11,13,33 of 2022 AND GRP.No. 2126 ot 2021 l. , -:\' 1.r.'l-..:.... 300CrP5 \ ;_: -: ..::. //' D ,.--. \t'r i:;'- ,ri ., , _.t,/-i | -.-;--" DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL'S AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION (r a 7) o