Validates Ownership through Tax Receipts and Independent Evidence, Rejects Unregistered Sale Deed: AP High Court Held Necessity of Registered Deeds

High Court affirms Rent Controller and Appellate Court’s decisions on tenant eviction, emphasizing necessity of registered documentation for ownership claims.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an eviction order, confirming the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and emphasizing the invalidity of unregistered sale deeds in establishing property ownership. The judgment, delivered by Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, reinforcing the necessity for registered documentation to prove ownership.

The respondent, Godugu Chintha Indhranammai, filed an eviction petition against the petitioner, Ponneri Raghupathi, alleging non-payment of rent and personal necessity for the premises. The petitioner claimed ownership of the property based on an unregistered sale deed dated December 10, 2010, and disputed the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

The Rent Controller and subsequent”y the Appellate Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, rejecting the unregistered sale deed as proof of ownership and confirming the tenancy and non-payment of rent. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner approached the High Court through the present civil revision petition.

The court highlighted the insufficiency of the unregistered sale deed in proving ownership. “The case of the petitioner that the property had been purchased on 10.10.2010 under an unregistered deed of sale was not accepted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court on the ground that such alienation would have to be demonstrated by way of a registered deed of sale,” Justice R. Raghunandan Rao noted.

The court acknowledged the respondent’s submission of tax receipts and independent evidence demonstrating her ownership and the tenancy relationship. “The respondent produced independent evidence to demonstrate the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent,” the judgment stated, while noting the lack of independent witnesses corroborating the petitioner’s claim.

Addressing the legal standards for ownership claims, the court emphasized the necessity of registered documentation. “In the absence of such a document and in view of the rejection of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioner, it must be held that the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate ownership over the property,” the court declared.

The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, confirming that the Act applies to properties with rent below Rs. 2,500. Given the rent in question was Rs. 750, the court found no grounds to challenge the Rent Controller’s authority. “Since the rent in question was Rs. 750, it would have to be held that the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction over the matter,” the judgment affirmed.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao remarked, “The rejection of the unregistered sale deed and the validation of the respondent’s ownership through consistent tax receipts and independent evidence underscore the necessity of registered documentation for proving ownership.”

The dismissal of the civil revision petition by the Andhra Pradesh High Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal standards concerning property ownership and tenant eviction. By affirming the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, the judgment reinforces the legal requirement for registered documentation to establish property ownership and validates the jurisdiction of Rent Controllers under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. This decision is expected to set a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: June 28, 2024

Ponneri Raghupathi vs. Godugu Chintha Indhranammai