-
by sayum
18 May 2026 2:57 PM
“Merely because the forum is of limited jurisdiction, it cannot be driven to ignore pleaded facts and evidence which go to the root of the landlord’s claim.” — In a detailed ruling that clarified the powers of statutory tribunals in tenancy disputes, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the eviction of cultivating tenants who defaulted on rent and created unauthorized sub-leases. The case revolved around oral tenancies, adoption, and title by Will, and the tenants questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 to adjudicate these matters.
Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar affirmed the findings of the Special Officer and Appellate Court, holding that the eviction order was lawful and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
“Relationship of landlord and tenant proved — oral lease followed by default and subletting justifies eviction”
The revision petition was filed by Gumma Ramachandraiah and others, who were cultivating tenants over 5.15 acres of land in Tatiparthipalem Village, leased orally by the original owner Akili Chenchu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao in 1985. Upon his death, his widow Smt. Varalakshamma and adopted son Akili Venkata Murali Krishna became successors.
The landlord filed A.T.C. No. 4 of 2000 seeking eviction under Sections 12, 13, and 16 of the Tenancy Act, citing non-payment of rent, unauthorized sub-letting, and soil shifting from the land.
“The Courts below concurrently held that the tenants failed to pay rents post the landowner's death and had sublet portions to family members without authorization.”
“Tenants’ claim of title under sale agreement fails — unregistered Ex.B.1 not proved or pleaded for protection under TPA”
The tenants alleged an agreement for sale (Ex.B.1) executed in their favor in 1986 by the original owner and invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming they were holding possession in part performance.
The High Court dismissed this contention outright:
“Ex.B.1 is unregistered and no credible evidence was led to prove its execution. There was no proof of part-performance or payment of balance sale consideration. Hence, Section 53A protection does not apply.”
Citing Ameer Minhaz v. Dierdre Elizabeth Issar (2018) 7 SCC 639, the Court reiterated that registration is mandatory to claim protection under Section 53A.
“Adoption and Will can be examined incidentally — validity of vesting rights proved on evidence”
The petitioners challenged the locus of the landlord, questioning his status as adopted son and the validity of the Will executed by the widow.
Rejecting this challenge, the Court held: “Adoption was proved by uncontroverted documentary evidence, including sale deeds and school records showing the respondent as adopted son… The Will was also proved by attesting witnesses.”
Relying on Bhogadi Kannababu v. Vuggina Pydamma (2006) 5 SCC 532, the Court clarified:
“In tenancy disputes, title issues may arise incidentally — tribunals are empowered to examine such facts to the extent necessary to decide legitimacy of landlord's eviction claim.”
“Tenant admitted lease, but denied payment of rent or knowledge of owner’s death — no equities in their favor”
The tenants admitted they were inducted in 1985 but never proved rent payments to the successors or explained their default. Their claim that they were unaware of the landowner’s death was rejected:
“Tenants cannot deny relationship and simultaneously seek protection under alleged oral lease — default and unauthorized subletting stand proved.”
Justice Krupa Sagar concluded: “There is absolutely no merit in this revision. There was no wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below.”
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
Date of Decision: 21 April 2025
