Landlord Aged 65 Or Above Has A Statutory Right To Immediate Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court enforces Section 10C of Rent Control Act

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the tenants' Civil Revision Petition challenging their eviction for willful default in rent payment. The Court also confirmed the landlord’s entitlement to immediate possession under Section 10C of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Eviction – Willful Default in Payment of Rent – Tenant’s Knowledge of Ownership – Eviction Upheld

The tenants had argued that they were unaware of the landlord’s ownership due to the absence of an attornment notice following a partition in 2002, which granted the property to the landlord. The petitioners claimed, “We have been regular in paying rent by way of money orders, and all receipts are available to substantiate this.”

However, the Court found this contention unsustainable in light of the evidence. Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, “The tenants admitted in cross-examination that the properties were partitioned, and the respective sharers were collecting rents. This acknowledgment negates their claim of ignorance about ownership.”

Further, the tenants had knowledge of the landlord’s ownership as early as 2002. Justice Nyapathy Vijay referred to the tenant’s admission during cross-examination: “It is true that the properties are partitioned, and each owner is collecting rents.” Based on this, the Court held that the tenants’ failure to pay rent since 2002 constituted willful default.

The Court dismissed the claim that the tenants were not aware of the partition, adding that they also acknowledged in their testimony that another shop owner had already sold her shop after the partition.

Right to Immediate Possession – Landlord Aged Above 65 – Section 10C of the Act

Justice Nyapathy Vijay invoked Section 10C of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, introduced through the Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005, which grants elderly landlords aged 65 or above the right to immediate possession. Citing the law, the Court held:

“Where the landlord is aged 65 years or more and seeks possession for his or her own use, the right to recover immediate possession accrues without the requirement of filing a separate application. The Rent Controller is bound to take steps as per the statutory mandate.”

The landlord in this case was 68 years old at the time of filing the eviction petition in 2009. Justice Nyapathy Vijay clarified that the Rent Controller was under a statutory obligation to ensure possession and stated, “The very filing of a Rent Control Case for eviction on account of willful default obligates the Rent Controller to take steps for immediate possession of the premises.”

The Court further emphasized that the landlord has the prerogative to choose which property to recover possession of, and this choice cannot be questioned by the tenants.

Evidence – Tenant's Receipts for Rent Payment – Claim Rejected

The tenants submitted money order receipts and postal acknowledgments to demonstrate that rent payments were made regularly. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating, “The evidence presented by the tenants does not outweigh the findings of the lower courts. The reasoning provided by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be perverse.”

The Court highlighted the absence of any documentary proof linking the rent payments to the landlord and concluded that the tenants had failed to discharge their obligation.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the tenants had committed willful default in rent payment and that the landlord was entitled to immediate possession under Section 10C. The Court granted the tenants six months to vacate the premises.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay concluded, “The orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are sound and require no interference. The landlord is entitled to possession, both on the ground of willful default and under the statutory right conferred by Section 10C.”

The Court made no order as to costs and clarified that any pending applications were closed.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2025