Appeal Partially Allowed: Eviction Counter-Claim Set Aside Due to Jurisdiction Issues; Suit Dismissal Upheld.

The SC partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment permitting the counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits due to the Civil Court's lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. However, it upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of an oral agreement of sale.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits.
3. Denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and its implications.
4. Validity of the counter-claim without framing specific issues.
5. Application of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
6. Requirement of notice for forfeiture of tenancy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement of Sale:
The Appellant, a tenant, alleged an oral agreement for the sale of the property for Rs. 80,000, claiming that approval from the Ceiling Authorities was necessary and granted in 1977. The Appellant asserted he only learned of this approval in 1997 and subsequently filed a suit for specific performance. Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected the Appellant's claim, finding he failed to establish the existence of the oral agreement. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, noting the Appellant's inability to persuade the Court otherwise.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain a Counter-Claim for Eviction and Mesne Profits:
The Respondents filed a counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits, asserting the Appellant forfeited his right to continue as a tenant by denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The Trial Court entertained this counter-claim despite not framing specific issues and allowed it based on the Appellant's failure to prove the oral agreement. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which mandates that eviction proceedings must be initiated before the Rent Controller.

3. Denial of the Landlord-Tenant Relationship and Its Implications:
The Appellant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship was a key issue. The Respondents contended that this denial justified eviction under the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court noted that denial of the landlord's title is a ground for eviction under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act, but such a determination must be made by the Rent Controller. The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim for eviction based solely on the denial of title.

4. Validity of the Counter-Claim Without Framing Specific Issues:
The Trial Court did not frame specific issues regarding the counter-claim but proceeded to consider it under a general issue. The Supreme Court found this approach flawed, emphasizing the necessity of framing specific issues to ensure a fair trial. The lack of specific issues led to an inadequate examination of evidence related to the counter-claim.

5. Application of the Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate:
The Respondents argued that the Appellant could not approbate and reprobate by denying the landlord-tenant relationship while seeking benefits under the alleged oral agreement. The Supreme Court acknowledged this doctrine but clarified that it could not be applied to circumvent statutory provisions. The Appellant's inconsistent pleas did not justify the Civil Court's jurisdiction over the counter-claim.

6. Requirement of Notice for Forfeiture of Tenancy:
The Supreme Court highlighted that forfeiture of tenancy requires proper notice under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Respondents did not serve such notice, which is a prerequisite for forfeiture. Consequently, the counter-claim for eviction based on forfeiture was invalid without compliance with statutory requirements.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it allowed the counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits, citing the Civil Court's lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. However, it upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. The appeal was allowed in part, with no costs awarded.

---