CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS.versusPEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.

                     [2010] 3 S.C.R. 123


               CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS.                           A
                               v.
            PEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.
        (Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2002 & Ors. Etc.)

                       MARCH 8, 2010
                                                                  B
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

     Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956:

      ss. 2(c), (f) and 13 - Landlord-tenant relationship - Suit c
for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent - Resisted on
ground of res judicata and permanent lease patta - HELD:
In the earlier litigation the High Court had held that it did not
have jurisdiction in the matter in view of the special process
prescribed in the Act and, that the title with respect to tenancy 0
rights had been perfected owing to adverse possession -
 These two rulings are not in conflict with each other and are
equally binding - Jurisdiction of High Court was ousted only
to limited extent with respect to eviction of tenants and
possession of property owing to procedure provided under the E
Act - But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with respect
to determination of title to the property and as such held that
title of ownership belonged to plaintiffs and defendants had
title with respect to tenancy rights on conditions prescribed
under the permanent lease patta - Therefore, earlier decision F
of High Court was merely with respect to tenancy title and
would not bar instant eviction proceedings uls 13 - It cannot
be said that a permanent lease would not result in tenant-
landlord relationship since it is implied that in such an
agreement non-fulfilment of prescribed terms (non-payment
of rent in the instant case) would give right to landlord to evict G
the tenant - The finding of the appellate authority that tenants
committed default in payment of rent was rightly affirmed by
High Court - Eviction of tenant not interfered with - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 - Res judicata - Deeds and
                                123                                H
    124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   documents - Permanent lease patta - Tenant-Landlord
    relationship.

          The suit property, namely, 29 acres 59 cents of land,
    belonged to respondent no. 1-Mutt. The head of the Mutt
    granted two permanent leases, and the lessees and their
8
    transferees sold the land to one 'MM'. The Mutt filed a suit
    against 'MM' and pursuant to a compromise during the
    pendency of the suit the Mutt executed a permanent lease
    patta dated 11.3.1931 in favour of 'MM' for the entire land.
    'MM' sold 10 acres of the land and the transferee further
C   sold the land to the father of the appellants in CA No. 2012
    of 2002, under a registered sale deed dated 25.5.1938. In
    1964, the Mutt filed a suit for declaration and possession
    against the father of the appellants. The suit was decreed.
    The consequent appeals bearing AS No. 130 of 1973 and
D   AS No.2413 of 1973 were allowed by the High Court
    holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the
    matters owing to the special process prescribed under
    the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 and that the
    title with respect to tenancy rights was perfected owing
E   to adverse possession. This judgment achieved finality
    as no appeal was filed thereagainst.

      In the year 1980 the Mutt filed eviction petition
  bearing ATC No. 35 of 1980 against the appellants and
F the same was dismissed on 24.8.1987. The appeal filed
  by the Mutt bearing ATC No. 9 of 1987 was allowed by
  the Additional District Judge on 3.6.1996. The revision
  petitions were dismissed by the High Court on
  17.11.2000. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeals.
G      It was contended for the appellants that in view of the
  permanent lease patta dated 11.3.1931, and the judgment
  of the High Court in AS No. 130 of 1973, which became
  final, the Mutt lost the right to recover the land from the
  appellants and that judgment would operate as re
H judicata.
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                  125
            JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.
     The questions for consideration before the Court           A
were: (i) whether the decision of the High Court in
holding that the findings given in A.S. No. 130 of 1973,
the earlier judgment on the same subject matter, would
not operate as res judicata, when in the said decision the
High Court had categorically held that the ~ 1 .pellants        B
perfected their title by adverse posses~ion in the
schedule property?; and (ii) whether a permanent lease
would give rise to a tenant-landlord relationship within the
meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Act, 1956 and the
High Court was correct in holding that the Mutt was             c
entitled to recover the suit though there was an
irrevocable condition in the lease patta dated 11.03.193'\
that the Mutt was entitled only for recovery of theerva
(rent) and not the possession?.
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court                           D

      HELD: 1.1. The Mutt had approached in appeal to the
High Court in A.S. No. 130 of 1973 for declaration of the
title of the property in their favour. The High Court in that
instance held two things: (1) that the court did not have
                                                                E
jurisdiction over the matters owing to the special process
prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Tenancy Act,
1956 - The court reached this conclusion by examining
the Act holding that the relationship of Tenant-Landlord
was established, thus confirming the jurisdiction of the
Act and ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil Court - and (2)     F
the title with respect of tenancy rights was perfected owing
to adverse possession. The court went on to determine
the title of the property itself and held that since the suit
had not been brought within the limitation period of 12
years, the appellants had perfected their title with respect    G
to tenancy rights on the basis of adverse possession.
These two rulings are not in conflict with each other, and
are equally binding. The jurisdiction of the High Court
was ousted only to a. limited extent, i.e. with respect to
the eviction of the tenants and possession of the               H
    126     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 3 S.C.R.


A property, as the procedure for that was provided under
  the Act. But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with
  respect to the determination of the title to the property.
  [Para 16 and 17) (138-A-H; 139-A]
       1.2. The import of the High Court decision in AS No.
8
  130 of 1973 has been misunderstood while relying on it
  for the purposes of res judicata. The court, in no
  uncertain terms, held that the title of ownership belongs
  to the respondents, but the appellants had the title with
C respect of tenancy rights. This decision was perfected by
  non-appeal and is binding on the parties. Thus, the
  appellants are not the owners of the property, but tenants
  on conditions prescribed under the permanent lease
  patta dated 11.03.1931. Therefore, the decision of the High
  Court in AS 130 of 1973 would not bar any proceedings
D under the Tenancy Act as the issue decided by the court
  in that instance was merely the tenancy title in favour of
  the appellants, while the instant case is for eviction of
  tenants u/s 13 of the Act. [Para 18) (139-8-0)

E        G. Veeraswamy v. Uppardasta Papanna 1969 An. W.R.
    359; U. Pappanna Sastri v. Naga Venkata Satyavati AIR
    1972 AP 53; K. Sesharatnamma vs.A. Satyanarayana 1963
    (2) An. W.R. 32, referred to.

       1.3. The instant proceedings emerging from the
F ruling of the lllrd Additional District Judge, exercising the
  powers of Appellate Authority under the A.P. Tenancy Act
  does not suffer from any legal infirmity as the
  proceedings are not barred by res judicata. [Para 21) [140-
  C-D]
G
      2.1. A person shall qualify to be a landlord under the
  meaning of the Tenancy Act if he is entitled to evict the
  tenant. Such entitlement can arise either directly due to
  the agreement entered into (i.e. by providing the time
H period of tenancy) or by providing the conditions or terms
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                  127
            JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.
of tenancy violating which the tenant may be evicted u/s        A
13. There is no reason why a permanent lease which
provides terms would not result in a tenant-landlord
relationship since it is implied in such an agreement that
non-fulfillment of the prescribed terms would give the
right to the landlord to evict the tenant. One such term        B
can be payment of periodic rent, which exists in the
instant case. Thus, the parties qualify as tenant-landlord
and are, thus, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy
Act. [Para 20 and 21] [139-H; 140-A-B]

     2.2. In view of categorical finding of the Appellate
                                                                c
Authority, which was rightly affirmed by the High Court,
that the tenants have committed default in payment of
rent from fasli 1372 and never paid rent, they are liable
to be evicted as per s. 13 of the Act. There is no reason
to interfere in the order of the High Court. [Para 21] [140-    D
D-E]
                     Case Law Reference:
    1969 An. W.R. 359        referred to          para 19
                                                                E
    AIR 1972 AP 53           referred to          para 19
    1963 (2) An. W.R. 32     referred to          para 19
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2012 of 2002.                                                   F

    From the Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2000 of the High
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No.
2124 of 1996.

                           Will-I                               G

C.A. No. 2011 & 2014 of 2002

    M.N. Rao, K. Ramamoorthy, S. Thananjayan, V. Sridhar
Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, VN Raghupathy, K.L. Sastry, Amit Kr.   H
    128      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [201 O] 3 S.C.R.


A   Srivastav, R.V. Kameshwaran, BA Ramagandhan, A.
    Subhashini V. Rangam, D. Julius Raimei, G. Gangmai, Sridhar
    Potarju for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B         P. SATHASIVAM, J.

    Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2002:

      1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
C dated 17.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature,
  Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.
  2124 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the High Court has
  dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.

    Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 2002:
D
       This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
  dated 17.11.2000 in Civil Revision Petitio_n No. 2322 of 1996
  whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition fried by the
  appellants herein by following its judgment passed on the same
E day in C.R.P. No. 2124 of 1996.

    Civil Appeal No. 2011 of 2002:

        This appeal is filed by the appellants who were not parties
    before the High Court against the judgment and order dated
F   17.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
    C.R.P. No. 2322 of 1996.

        (a) Since the issues which arose in these appeals are
        similar, they were heard together and are being disposed
        of by this common judgment. The facts in Civil Appeal No.
G
        2012 of 2002 are sufficient for the disposal of all these
        appeals. They are as under:

          (b) A property consisting of 29 acres 59 cents in T.S.
          No.11 and old T.S. No. 507 of Tirupathi town originally
H
   CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                      129
JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 belonged to the Plaintiff - Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt                A
 (hereinafter called 'the Mutt') - respondent herein. The then
 head of the Mutt granted a permanent lease in respect of
 12 acres of land to one Kotilingam Subbaraya Chetti under
 a registered lease deed dated 8.01.1900. He also granted
 a permanent lease in respect of 15 acres of land to one         s
 Shaik Sudan Saheb under a registered lease deed dated
 29.11.1915. Shaik Sudan Saheb sold the leasehold rights
 in equal halves to Narasimhaiah under a deed dated
 01.12.1919 and Mandaram Munikannaiah under a deed
 dated 19.08.1922. Narasimhaiah sold his half share              c
 purchased under deed dated 1.12.1919 to Mandaram
 Munikannaiah under a registered lease deed dated
 19.08.1922. Thus Mandaram Munikannaiah got 15 acres
from the said property and out of that he leased out 12
acres of land to Kotilingam Subbaraya Chetti by a                D
registered lease deed dated 06.01.1919. The Mutt filed
 0.S. No.152 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsifs
 Court, Tirupathi, against Mandaram Munikannaiah in
 respect of total land. During the pendency of the suit, there
was a compromise and the Mutt executed a registered
 permanent patta dated 11.03.1931 in favour of Mandaram          E
Manikannaiah for the total land and he sold 10 acres of
land to Pappaiah under a registered sale deed dated
21.09.1935 and after his death, his son Polaiah sold the
said land to Chittoor Siddaiah under a registered sale
deed dated 25.05.1938. Polaiah created usufructory               F
mortgage of the property in favour of Chithoor Siddaiah
under a registered deed dated 07.06.1937 and eversince
he is in possession of the property. On 07.08.1964, the
Mutt filed O.S. No. 59 of 1964 before the Sub-Court,
Chittoor for declaration and possession which was                G
transferred to Sub-Court, Tirupathi and renumbered as
O.S. No. 7 of 1971 and the same was dismissed by the
subordinate Judge. Against the said judgment, Chittoor
Siddaiah (defendant No.3 in the suit) preferred A.S.No.
130 of 1973 and one S.Veeraswamy Naidu (defendant                H
    130       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         No.4 in the suit) who was a purchaser from Mandaram
          Munikannaiah filed A.S. No. 243 of 1973 on the file of the
          High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the
          said appeals. In the year 1980, the Mutt - respondent
          herein, filed eviction petition bearing A.T.C. No. 35 of 1980
B         and the same was dismissed by. the Principal District
          Munsif-cum-Special Officer, Tirupathi by order dated
          24.08.1987. During the pendency of A.T.C. No. 35of1980,
          the Mutt filed O.S.No. 176 of 1981 on the file of the
          Additional sub-Court, Tirupathi for declaration and
c         permanent injunction and the same was disposed of by
          holding that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
          permanent owner but without a right to recover possession.
          Against the order passed in A.T.C. No. 35 of 1980, the
          Mutt filed ATC No.9 of 1987 under the AP. Tenancy Act
          and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge
D
          vide order dated 03.06.1996. Aggrieved by the said order,
          the appellants herein filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2124
          of 1996 before the High Court which was dismissed by the
          High Court on 17.11.2000. Following the judgment in Civil
          Revision Petition No. 2124 of 1996, on the same day, the
E         High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 2322 of
          1996. Hence the present appeals have been filed before
          this Court by way of special leave petitions.

        2. Heard Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the
F   appellants and Mr. AV. Rangam, learned counsel for the
    respondents.

        3. Before going into the merits of the claim made by both
  the parties, it is useful to refer the definition of "cultivating tenant"
G in Section 2(c) and "landlord" under Section 2(f) of the Andhra
  Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy At, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
  Act'):

          Section 2 (c)

H         "Cultivating tenant" means a person who cultivates by his
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                        131
   JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     own labour or by that of any other members of his family         A
     or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any
     land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement,
     express or implied, but does not include a mere
     intermediary";
                                                                      B
     Section 2 (f)

     ""landlord" means the owner of a holding or part thereof
     who is entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such
     holding or part, and includes the heirs, assignees, legal
     representatives of such owner or person deriving rights          C
     through him":

With these statutory definitions and the Mutt having approached
the authorities under the Act for eviction of the appellants, let
us consider the rival claims. In the earlier part of the pleadings,   D
we have adverted to the case of both the parties, however, it
is useful to trace the rival claim briefly hereinafter. As early on
29.11.1915, permanent lease was executed in favour of Sheik
Sudan Saheeb in respect of 15 acres of land. The suit land was
sold by him into two halves one to Shri Narasimhaiah and
                                                                      E
another to Mandaram Munikannaiah. Narasimhaiah sold his
share to Mandaram Munikannaiah by sale deed dated
19.08.1922.

     4. The Mutt granted 12 acres of land on permanent lease
to one Kotilingam Subbaraya Chetti in the year 1919 and this          F
land was occupied by Mandaram Munikannaiah. It was pointed
out that there is a condition in the lease deed dated 19.11.1915
that those land shall always remain as Modati Eeedu (1st
Charge) for cist and pay Jodi payable to the Government.
                                                                      G
     5. The Mutt filed O.S. No. 152of1930 against Mandaram
Munikannaiah in respect of the land occupied by him. During
the pendency of the suit, there was a compromise and the Mutt
executed a registered permanent lease Patta (though not a
permanent lease) on 11.03.1931 in favour of Mandaram
                                                                      H
    132      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   Munikannaiah for the total extent of land, namely, 29 acres-59
    cents. It is useful to refer the terms of permanent lease patta
    dated 11.03.1931:

          (i) Mandaram Munikannaiah shall enjoy entire schedule
          property by paying Rs. 25/- to the Mutt from Fasali 1340.
B
          (ii) In future Mandaram Munikannaiah or his legal heirs can
          transfer etc. the schedule mention land to any one and such
          fact shall be intimated to Pedda Jeeyangar the
          Matadhipathy, and transfer deed shall be got executed with
c         his consent by the transferer.

          (iii) The schedule mention land shall always been first
          Eeedu (1st Charge) for the said permanent ·lease amount.

          (iv) The pedda Jeeyangar alone shall pay the usual jodi,
D         Cess, etc. and cist to Government.

          (v) Further Pedda Jeeyangar shall have a right to claim the
          excess amount paid, if any, to Government from
          Mandaram Munikannaiah.
E
          (vi) Mandaram Munikannaiah shall have absolute and
          unlimited rights in respect of schedule mentioned land and
          shall enjoy the same as per his wishes in perpetuity.

          (vii) The Pedda Jeeyangar have no manner of right in
F         respect of the land except the right to recover theerva
          (rent).

      6. By pointing out the various clauses in the permanent
  lease, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants
G submitted that the Mutt has no right in respect of the property
  except to recover theerva (rent).

         7. An extent of land of 10 acres which is a subject matter
    of the said suit was sold to Pappaiah on 21.09.1935. After\ the
    death of Pappaiah, his son Polaiah became the absolute owner
H
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                      133
   JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of the subject matter of the suit property.By registered deed       A
dated 07 .06.1937, Polaiah created usufructry mortgage of the
property in favour of Chittoor Siddaiah (father of the appellant)
and eversince he has been in possession and enjoyment of the
property to the knowledge of the Mutt. The materials placed
further show that by a registered deed dated 25.05.1938             B
Polaiah sold the said 1O acres of land to Chittoor Siddaiah.

       8. In order to establish its right, title and possession, the
 Mutt filed O.S. No. 59 of 1964 before Sub-Court, Chittoor on
 07.08.1964 which was subsequently transferred to Sub-Court C
Tirupathi and re-numbered as O.S. No. 7of1971. In the said
 suit the Mutt is the plaintiff and Thirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam
 is Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2 - Board of Trustees of
TTD, Defendant No. 3 - Chittoor Siddhaiah, father of the
 present appellant and Defendant No. 4 is Veeraswamy Naidu.
 In the plaint, it was contended that permanent lease deed which D
was executed in favour of Mandaram Munikannaiah was null
 and void and the same was barred under Section 29 of the
 Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
 1929. On the other hand, in the written statement, it was
 specifically contended that the subject matter of the land has E
been perfected by the predecessors of the appellant by
adverse possession. On 03.10.1972, the Sub-Court Tirupathi
decreed the suit holding that the defendants have failed to pay
the rents as tenants and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted.
The plea of adverse possession was rejected. The Court also F
held that Defendant Nos. 3and 4 (appellants herein) are only
entitled to compensation for the improvement effected in the
field. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
appellants herein filed appeal AS. No. 130 of 1973 before the
Hlgh Court. Defendant No. 4 has also filed an Appeal No. 243 G
of 1973. The Mutt has filed cross objections. The High Court
by a common judgment dated 12.10.1976 held that the
appellants have perfected the title in respect of tenancy rights
by adverse possession and the suit was filed beyond the period
of limitation. The High Court further held that the Act will apply H'
-
        134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


    A to the facts of the case and observed that it would be open to
      the parties to take steps as may be open to them under the
      provisions of the Tenancy Act. With the said observation, the
      High Court disposed of the appeals and dismissed the cross
      objections filed by the Mutt. It is important to point out that the
    s judgment of the High Court in the above appeals become final
      as no appeal was preferred.

             9. After the judgment of the High Court in AS. No. 130 of
       1973, nearly after three years the Mutt filed ATC No. 35 of 1980
    C under the AP. Tenancy Act against the appellants for eviction
       on the ground that the appellants herein defaulted in payment
       of rent from 1373 fasli (1963 onwards). It was highlighted by
       the appellants by filing reply contending that what was granted
       by the Mutt in favour of Mandaram Munikannaiah on 11.03.1931
       was not a permanent lease but it was only a permanent patta.
    D It was pointed out that the father of the appellants had
       purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed
       dated 25.05.1938 and since then they are in continuous
       possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further it was
      ·contended that the appellants even otherwise have perfected
    E the title by adverse possession and therefore there is no
       relationship of landlord and tenants between the Mutt and the
       appellants. In the same way, the ATC filed by the Mutt is barred
       by limitation.

    F       10. During the pendency of ATC No. 35of1980, the Mutt
      filed O.S. No. 176 of 1981 on the file of additional Sub- Court
      Tirupathi for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was
      disposed of holding that the plaintiff therein is entitled for
      declaration as permanent owner but without right to recover
    G possession. Here again, the said finding become final as the
      Mutt has not challenged the same, however, appeal was filed
      by the appellant herein against the order of granting injunction
      by the learned Judge in O.S. No. 176of1981. The appeal AS.
      No. 75of1989, which was also dismissed and second appeal
    H filed by the appellants herein that is S.A No. 1081 of 2000 is
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                       135
   JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
still pending on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at          A
Hyderabad.

      11. On 24.08.1987, learned Judge dismissed ATC No. 35
of 1980 holding that the appellants perfected title by adverse
possession. On 03.06.1996, ATA No. 9 of 1987 filed by the
                                                                      8
Mutt was allowed without taking note of the dismissal of ATC
35 of 1980 filed by the very same Mutt. In those circumstances,
Civil Revision No. 2124 of 1996 was filed by the appellants
before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Among the several contentions, the main contention             C~
raised by the appellants herein is that the judgment of the High
Court in appeal A.S. No. 130of1973 became final and the Mutt
has lost the right to recover the land from the appellants herein.
The judgment would operate as res judicata against the Mutt.
However, on 17.11.2000, the High Court dismissed the Civil            D!,
Revision No. 2124 of 1996 by holding that the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the appellants and the first
respondent-the Mutt, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, not
barred by any res judicata dismissed the revision. As observed
earlier, challenging the said order three appeals have been filed
before this Court.                                                    EI

      12. Now, we have to consider whether the decision of the
High Court in holding that the findings given in A.S. No. 130 of
1973, the earlier judgment on the same subject matter, would
not operate as res judicata, when in the said decision the High       F
Court had categorically held that the appellants perfected their
title by adverse possession in the schedule property and the
suit is barred by limitation. In addition to the same, we have
also to consider whether the High Court is correct in holding
that othe Mutt is entitled to recover the suit lands when there       G
is irrevocable condition in the lease patta dated 11.03.1931
wherein it is stated that the Mutt is entitled only for recovery of
theerva (rent) and not the possession.

    13. The common judgment oi' the High Court dated
12.10.1973 in A.S. No. 130 and 243 of 1973 with cross                 H
    136       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A objections are available and placed before this Court as
  Annexure-P1. After narrating the entire events commencing
  from permanent lease patta, the High Court came to the
  conclusion a) the suit for eviction of the appellants and for
  recovery of possession is not maintainable before a Civil Court
B b) a proceeding in that direction is maintainable only before the
  statutory designated authority under the Andhra Pradesh
  Tenancy Act, 1956 c) the suit is barred by limitation and d) the
  appellants have perfected their title to the suit properties with
  respective tenancy rights.
c        14. Res Judicata is defined under Section11 of the Code
    of Civil Procedure [CPC] as under:

          "No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter
          directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
D         substantially in issue in a former suit between the same
          parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them
          claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent
          to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue
          has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and
E         finally decided· by such Court."

          Explanation I-The expression "former suit" shall denote a
          suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question
          whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

F         Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the
          competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective
          of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision
          of such Court.

          Explanation Ill.- The matter above ·referred to must in the
G
          former suit have been alleged by one party and either
          denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

          Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have
          been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit
H
       CHITIOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                     137
    JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and             A
     substantially in issue in such suit.

     Explanation V.- Any·relief claimed in the plaint, which is
     not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes
     of this section, be deemed to have been refused.               B
     Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect
     of public right or of a private right claimed in common for
     themselves and others, all persons interested in such right
     shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim
     under the persons so litigating.                               c
    Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply
    to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and
    reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit
    shall be construed as references, respectively, to              o
    proceedings for the execution of the decree, question
    arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for
    the execution of that decree.

    Explanation Vlll.-An issue heard and finally decided by a
    Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such         E
    issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit,
    notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was
    not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
    which such issue has been subsequently raised.
                                                                    F
From the above, it is clear that a court is barred from
entertaining an issue which has already been decided
previously by any court of law.

     15. The appellants in the present case have argued that
the decision of the High Court in A.S. No. 130 of 1973 fully        G
resolved the issues arising in the present case and, thus, would
bar their agitation now. In order to determine this question, we
must look closely at the decision of the High Court and see what
the Court actually held.
                                                                    H
    138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A          16. The Mutt had approached in appeal to the High Court
    in A.S. No. 130 of 1973 for declaration of the title of the
    concerned pr9perty in their favour. The Court held that it did not
                                   a
     have jurisdiction to entertain suit .for possession against the
     defendants owing to the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956. It was held
B   that it was the Tatlsildar acting under the Act who was
     competent to entertain such matters relating to the termination
     of tenancy and the eviction of the cultivating tenant. The court
     reached this conclusion by examining the Act holding that the
     relationship of Tenant-Landlord is established, thus confirming
c   the jurisdiction of the Act and ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil
    Court. Nevertheless, the court went on to determine the title of
    the property itself. Arguments were raised that the permanent
    lease or patta entered into would be in violation of Hindu
    Religious Endowments Act, and thus be infructuous. It was
    pointed out that the permanent lease deed 29.11.1915 is ab
0
    initio void as sanction was not obtained from the Endowment
    Authorities as prescribed under the Madras Hindu Religious
    and Charitable Endowments Act, 1929 which prohibits any
    alienation, lease, sale or mortgage exceeding five years and
E   the appellants who had purchased in good faith and continuing
    in possession without any interruption since 1931, have
    perfected their title by adverse possession. The court on this
    point held that since the suit had not been brought within the
    limitation period of 12 years, the appellants had perfected their
    title with respect of tenancy rights on the basis of adverse
F   possession.

          17. Therefore, the High Court in that instance held two
  things, (1) that the court did not have jurisdiction over the
  matters owing to the special process prescribed under the
G Tenancy Act; and (2) the title with respect of tenancy rights was
  perfected owing to adverse possession. These two rulings are
  not in conflict with each other, and are equally binding. The
  jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted only to a limited extent,
  i.e. with respect to the eviction of the tenants and possession
H of the property, as the procedure for that was provided under
      CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA                          139
   JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the Act. But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with respect      A
to the determination of the title of the property.

        18. The appellants seem to have misunderstood the import
 of the High Court decision while relying on it for the purposes
 of res judicata. The court, in no uncertain terms, held that the
                                                                        8
 title of ownership belongs to the present respondents, but the
 present appellants had the title with respect of tenancy rights.
This decision was perfected by non-appeal and is binding on
 the parties. Thus, the present appellants are not the owners of
the property, but tenants on conditions prescribed under the            C
permanent lease patta dated 11.03.1931 mentioned above.
Thus, we hold that the decision of the High Court in 1973 would
not bar any proceedings under the Tenancy Act as the issue
decided by the co1.1rt in that instance was merely the tenancy
title in favour of the appellants, while the present case is eviction
of tenants under Section 13 of the Act.                                 D

      19. Coming to the next question, it has to be determined
whether a permanent lease gives rise to a tenant-landlord
relationship within the meaning of the Act. The appellants have
relied upon Chinnappa Reddy, J. 's opinion in G. Veeraswamy             E
 v. Uppardasta Papanna, 1969 An. W.R. 359, where it was held
that the Act applies only to tenancy agreements and not to
permanent tenancies. We must also note two other opinions
regarding the interpretation of the application of the Act. In U.
Pappanna Sastri v. Naga Venkata Satyavati, AIR 1972 AP 53,              F
the Court placed reliance on K. Sesharatnamma v. A.
Satyanarayana, 1963 (2) An. W.R. 32. It was held that the pre-
condition for establishing the tenant-landlord relationship is that
the landlord should have reserved for himself the right to evict
the tenant.
                                                                        G
     20. Thus, a person shall qualify to be a landlord under the
meaning of the Act if he is entitled to evict the tenant. Such
entitlement can arise either directly due to the agreement
entered into (i.e. by providing the time period of tenancy) or by
providing the conditions or terms of tenancy violating which the        H
    140     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   tenant may be evicted under Section 13. We find no reason
    why a permanent lease which provides terms would not result
    in a tenant- landlord relationship since it is implied in such an
    agreement that non fulfillment of the prescribed terms would give
    the right to- the landlord to evict the tenant. One such term can
s   be payment of periodic rent, which exists in the present case.
    Thus, the respondents in the present case do qualify as
    landlords.

        21. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the
  present proceedings emerging from the ruling of the lllrd
C Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, exercising the powers of
  Appellate Authority under the AP. Tenancy Act does not suffer
  from any legal infirmity as the proceedings are not barred by
  res judicata. Furthermore, the parties qualify as tenant-landlord
  and are, thus, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Act.
D In view of categorical finding of the Appellate Authority that the
  tenants have committed default in payment of rent from fasli
  1372 and never paid rent, they are liable to be evicted as per
  Section 13 of the Act which was rightly affirmed by the High
  Court. We thus find no reason to interfere' in the order of the
E High Court, consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed
  with no order as to cost.

    R.P.                                       Appeals dismissed.