HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI Vs. BHUPENDRA N PATEL
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
February 28,2002
HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI
Appellant
VERSUS
BHUPENDRA N.PATEL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
B M SONI VS. ASHOK AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-161] [REFERRED TO]RAJENDRA NATH KAPUR VS. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
G JAGDESWAR REDDY VS. K DHARMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2006-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN VS. B MANORAMA [LAWS(APH)-2008-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. CHANDRAKANT PANDEY [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
S R MAHENDRA RAJ VS. V A GNANAPRAKASAM [DECEASED] [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
SEWOOMAL VS. JAI SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-168] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.SRI SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES VS. SRI NARAYANDAS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. MOTI RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
NARSING PRASAD VS. DINESH MOHANLAL PARDHANANI [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. GULSHAN KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSHAD AND ANR. VS. UPPER DISTRICT JUDGE I/F.T.C AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SHARMA VS. H.S.B. ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH GOEL VS. YOGENDRA SINGH NEHRU [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-227] [REFERRED TO]
NARRA MADHAVA RAO VS. B SADASIVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
VANUMU KONDAMMA VS. POLAVARAPU SIMHACHALAM [LAWS(APH)-2013-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
Management of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti, Cuttack VS. District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Cuttack [LAWS(ORI)-2006-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
CANTONMENT BOARD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE (INCHARGE) [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-324] [REFERRED TO]
CANTONMENT BOARD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE (INCHARGE) [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-324] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA NATH KAPUT VS. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA [LAWS(UTN)-2007-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH JAL NIGAM THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER VS. WAJID SONS EXPORTS LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM PADAMNABH JAIKISHAN AND OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL AGRAWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2007-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. VS. SOHAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAGDISH KUMAR LUNIYAL S/O JAMNADAS LUNIYAL VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, F.T.C. I. AND SMT. SWARN LATA W/O RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THROUGH COLLECTOR AND FOOD PRESERVATION CENTER THROUGH ITS INCHARGE VS. MR. K.M. AGARWAL S/O LATE SRI (LALA) MOHAN LAL S/O SRI S.P. KALRA [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
DR. B.M. SONI VS. ASHOK AGARWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR PALIWAL VS. OM PRAKASH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DAYAL SINGH RAWAT VS. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES,TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD AND ANO VS. NARAYANDAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-105] [REFERRED]
RAJESHWARI AWASTHI & OTHERS VS. OM PRAKASH & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-354] [REFERRED]
SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES VS. NARAYANDAS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL VS. BANKE LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR PUNERA VS. PRAMOD CHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH KUMAR MOHOTRA VS. SUMAN GUMBOR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SHARKER TRIPATHI VS. SMT. RAJ RANI MEHROTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA TYAGI (SMT.) VS. SMT. SHEELA RANI AGGARWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWARI RAJWAR (SMT.) VS. SMT. HARPRIYA PARIHAR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SINGH VS. KM. SARASWATI BOHRA [LAWS(UTN)-2007-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR VS. AKHIL BHARTIYA YADAV DHARAMSHALA SAMITI (TRUST), REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY SANSTHA MAZKOOR [LAWS(UTN)-2007-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD INAM VS. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA GAURAV PANDEY VS. SANGEETA AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 2236 of 1997 dated July 19, 1999 is by the tenant. The respondents are the landlords of a non-residential building bearing No. 4-6-244 (old No. 1883) Subhas Road, Subrie Street, Secunderabad which was earlier owned by one Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma who entered into an agreement of lease in regard to the ground floor of that building (for short, 'the premises') with the appellant. She sold the premises in favour of respondent No. 1 and one late Babu Lal Patel whose legal representatives are respondents Nos. 2 to 7. After the sale Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma sent a letter attorning the tenancy of M/s. Brij Mohan Chokkani and Sons (for short, 'the firm') in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 7. Thereafter the rent was being paid by the firm to the said respondents and receipts therefor were being issued in favour of the firm. While so the respondents filed eviction petition in the Court of the Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad against the appellant on various grounds under S. 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant contested the eviction petition, inter alia, on the plea that he was not the tenant but the firm was the tenant of the premises, therefore, the eviction petition of the appellant was not maintainable. The learned Principal Rent Controller held that the firm was the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition on December 31, 1992. The respondent challenged the order of the learned Principal Rent Controller in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad (the Appellate Authority under the Act). That finding of the learned Principal Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the appeal was dismissed on February 26, 1997. Dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents filed C.R.P. No. 2236 of 1997 in the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the civil revision petition by order dated July 19, 1999. It is against that order that the appellant is before us in appeal by special leave.
(2.)Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that even before the attornment of the tenancy of the premises in favour of the respondents, the firm alone was the tenant; the firm was paying the rent and the erstwhile landlady was accepting the same and passing receipts in its favour. It was the tenancy of the firm but not the appellant that was attorned in favour of the respondents, therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the appellant is the tenant of the premises. Mr. L. N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has argued that merely by paying the rent the firm cannot become the tenant of the premises and that the letter of attornment does not carry the matter any further, because the firm was carrying on the business in the premises, the letter of attornment was addressed to the firm and that would not make the firm a tenant.
(3.)The short question that arises for consideration is : whether the High Court is right in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the statutory authorities and holding that the appellant is the tenant of the premises.
(2.)Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that even before the attornment of the tenancy of the premises in favour of the respondents, the firm alone was the tenant; the firm was paying the rent and the erstwhile landlady was accepting the same and passing receipts in its favour. It was the tenancy of the firm but not the appellant that was attorned in favour of the respondents, therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the appellant is the tenant of the premises. Mr. L. N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has argued that merely by paying the rent the firm cannot become the tenant of the premises and that the letter of attornment does not carry the matter any further, because the firm was carrying on the business in the premises, the letter of attornment was addressed to the firm and that would not make the firm a tenant.
(3.)The short question that arises for consideration is : whether the High Court is right in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the statutory authorities and holding that the appellant is the tenant of the premises.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.