2012 (7) TMI 1144 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of unregistered rent deed for recovery of rent.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
3. Calculation of arrears of rent.
4. Eviction proceedings under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Unregistered Rent Deed for Recovery of Rent:
The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower courts on the ground that the rent deed marked as Exhibit-69, being unregistered, cannot be legally accepted in evidence for the purpose of recovery of rent. The High Court relied on the precedent set in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons & Ors. [2000 (6) SCC 394]. The Supreme Court, however, noted that even if the rent deed was not registered, other uncontroverted evidence on record could support the appellants' claim for recovery of rent.

2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the relationship between the appellants and the respondent as landlord and tenant was not in dispute. The respondent admitted the tenancy and the rate of rent in his written statement. The Court held that such admissions are the best evidence and do not require further corroboration. The High Court failed to consider this vital aspect, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

3. Calculation of Arrears of Rent:
The Supreme Court calculated the arrears of rent based on the respondent's admission of the annual rent of Rs. 800/-. The claim period was from October 1971 to November 1980, amounting to 9 years. The arrears were calculated as Rs. 2400/- for each of the three suits (RCS No.167/1974, RCS No.211/1977, and RCS No.240/1980), totaling Rs. 7200/-. The Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and the lower appellate court with this modification.

4. Eviction Proceedings under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954:
The respondent's eviction was sought on the grounds of willful default in rent payment and termination of tenancy. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application ex parte due to the respondent's failure to file a written statement. The appellate court upheld this decision. However, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller, directing the respondent to file a written statement and the appellant to comply with Section 15 (2)(i) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Leases) Control Act, 1954. The Supreme Court noted that the Rent Controller had dismissed the application after remittal, and an appeal was pending before the District Judge. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition related to this issue as infructuous, directing the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the pending appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals regarding the arrears of rent, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court and lower appellate court's judgment with modifications. The Special Leave Petition concerning eviction proceedings was dismissed as infructuous. There were no orders as to costs.