LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label tenancy act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tenancy act. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 31, 2012

whether removing tin sheets and making cement slab amounts to permanent construction or not – the lower court correctly held that it amounts to permanent constructions , where as High court negatived the same, where as the Apex court set aside the High court order and confirm the Lower court order

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...
Saturday, October 20, 2012

A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956,The first is title to the land and the second is existence of relationship of landlady and tenant. - Once the title of a person over a piece of land is upheld, he is entitled to recover the possession thereof, if it is in the hands of third parties. If the person in possession is a tenant, his eviction can be sought just by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, if the tenancy is governed by the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, different legal consequences ensue. It confers certain benefits upon the tenants. It is only when the default is committed in payment of rents, that the tenant would become liable to be evicted.-The petitioners are admittedly in possession of the land and the title of the respondent in respect of the said land was accepted by the Special Officer on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. Once the title is established, the petitioners, being the persons without any title were under obligation to state the nature and character of their possession. One plea raised by them was that the subject matter is an inam land and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even if that were to be true, they did not take any steps to get ryotwari pattas. Though absence of such steps cannot by itself lead to an inference that they are tenants, the plea raised by the respondent that rajabhagam i.e. the rent was being paid till the year 1984 to her mother and thereafter, the petitioners stopped it was not refuted effectively. Further, the petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate the nature of possession otherwise than in the capacity of the tenants. The Appellate Court has applied the correct principles of appreciation of evidence and held that an inference must be drawn as to the existence of relationship of landlady and tenant. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding, particularly when the appellate forum happens to be a last Court on facts, under the enactment. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed.

›
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY         CRP Nos.219 of 2012 and Batch 13.09.2012 CRP No.219 of 2012 P. Dharma Rao S...