M Papi Reddy and another v. Mr. Syed Nehaluddin Ahmed and 2 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-06-12. M Papi Reddy and another v. Mr. Syed Nehaluddin Ahmed and 2 others. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S,RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636 AND 740F 2020 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636 OF 2020 Petition under Section 22 of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, aggrieved by the Order dated. 26. 09. 2019 passed in RCA No. 94 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief fudge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated. '1 7. 9. 2018 passed in RC No. 239 ol 2014 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad Between: 1. lt4 Papi Reddy, S/o Late M. R. K. Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 6-1 -1 32l1 3012, P admarao Nagar, Secunderabad. 2. tr,4. Janaki Devi, W/o M. Papi Reddy, aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 6-1 -1 32l13012, P admarao Nagar, Secunderabad. ...
Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents and Tenants in RC (in Both CRP's) AND 1. tr/r. Syed Nehaluddin Ahmed, S/o late Syed Qamaruddin Ahmed, aged about 80 years, Occ. Retired Central Government Servant, R/o H. No. 22-7 -383, Kotla Akbarhah, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2. Smt. Khatija Begum, W/o late Syed Viqoruddin Ahmed, aged 65 years, Occ. Household, Rep. by her GPA holder, Mr. Syed Nisaruddin Ahmed, S/o Syed Viquaruddin Ahmed, Rt/o H. No 22-7 -383, Kotla Akbarjah, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 3 Syed Laeequddin Ahmed, S/o late Syed Qamaruddin, aged 65 years, Occ. Retired Govt. Employee, R/o H. No. 22-7-383, Kotla Akbarjah, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. ...
Respondents/Respondents/Petitioners and Landlords in RC (in both CRP's) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned ll Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 17-09-2018 in R. C No. 239 of 2014 which was confirmed by the learned Additional Chief Judge,City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RCA No. 94 of 2018 by order dated 26-09-2019 pending disposal of the above CRP I crvr L REVrsroN PETrTrolr_NQJAef2! 29 Petition under Section 22 of felangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, aggrieved by the Order dated. 26. 09. 2019 passed in RCA No. 95 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated. 17. 9.
2018 passed in RC No, 240 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad lA NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition under Sr:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therevrith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Il Additional Rent Controller, City Srnall Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 17-09-2018 in R. C No. 240 of 2014 which wirs confirmed by the learned Additional Chlef Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RCA No. 95 ol 2018 by order dated jl6-09-20'19 pending disposal of the above CRP Counsel for the Petitiorrers: SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO (in both CRPs) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NAZIR AHMED KHAN (in both CRPs) The Court made the following: COMMON OROER T}II HONOURABLE SItI JT]STICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Civil Rcvision Petition No. 636 of 2020 and Civil Revision Petition No. 74 of 2020 COMMON ORDER : Civil Revision Petition No.
74 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dt. 26. 09. 2019 passed in R. C. A. No. 95 of 2018 on the tlle ol the Additional Chiel Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad Authority under Section 20 of the Telangana [Appellate Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act')] confirrr. ring the order passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad on 17. 09. 2018 in R. C. No. 240 of 2014 in respect of premises bearing No. l-1-258/19/l situate at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 2. Civil Revision Petition No. 636 of 2020 is filed by the same petitionel against the sar. ne respondents challenging the order dt. 26. 09. 2019 passed in R. C. A. No. 94 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Srnall Causes Couft, Hyderabad conlirming the order dt. l 7. 09. 201 8 passed in R. C. No.
239 of 2014 on the llle ol'II Additional Rent Contloller', City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in respect o1- prenrises Lrealing MLrnicipal No. l- l-258/19, C)iikkaclpal11, I lyderabacl . , The petitioners are tenants of the respondents in respect of these two properties which had been purchased by the respondents under a registered sale deeds dt. I1. 07. 1967 and 18. 03. 1975 respectively. I c p 616&7,1 1020 4. The sai<l premises had been let-out by the respondents to the petitioners on 07. 09. 1989 for doing electrical busint:ss in the name and style 'Ernjay Electricals' by pooling the mulgies together. As on the comrnencement of the lease, the monthly rent was Rs. 600/-. But, at the time of the filing of the R. C. , the monthly ren.. lor each mulgi rvas Rs. l:. 43 i- rnd lor both mulgies it was Its. 21,862,1- 5. The respondent nos. l and 3 and the husband of 2"'l respondent are brothers and are the landlords. Thc case of thc rcsnondents/la ndlords in thc Flviction l'etition 6.
The respondents contended that the son ofthe 2'd respondent by name Sri Syr'd Nizaruddin Ahmed, who is a General Power of Attornel' holder of the 2nd respondent wanted to dI haldware and sanitary busin,:ss along with the sons of respondent nos. 1 and 3, and he is a qualilied mechanical engineer and both the rnulgies were required for tho said purpose. 7, They contended that they are all senior citizens and respondent nos. 1 and 3 a:'c also retired Government employees ancl respondent no. 2 is a widcr'v; and under Sections 10-B and 1 0-C of the Act, they are entitled to possession olthe same by evicting the 1:etitioners. 8. They strrled that a portion of the subject premi:es rvas acquiled in road-widening and consequently the area olrnulgier; was reduced crp_636&',7 4 2020 9. It is further contended that petitionels made some alterations of the structure of the mulgies without obtaining any consent ol the respondents, and this amounts to committing acts of nuisance. 10.
It is also alleged that the petitioners are irregular in payment of monthly lents and that they had failed to pay the same for both the n. rulgies from Septemb er, 201 4. I l. With the above allegations, the respondents filed both the R. C. s ref'erred to above against the petitioners invoking Section 10(2Xi), l0(2)(iv), Sections ltl(3)(a)(iii)(b) and Section i 0 C(i) of the Act see king evictior-r ol the petitioners. Thc casc of the Detitioners/tcn ants in the Eviction I'etition 12. C-'oLrnter-alildavit u,as filed by the petitioners in both the R. Cs adn. ritting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 13. They contended that the respondents are well-settled; that the sons ol the respondents are employed and settled in the United States of America and the plea . of bona fide requirement of the premises for the son of the 2nd respondent is false. 14.
They alleged that they have been regularly paying rents till August, 2014 and from September,, 2014 they are sending rents through Money Order to the respondents, and that the respondents are r',-lusing to receive the rents and returned the Money Orders. \ I c:p 6i6&74_2020 15. They also alleged that the respondents wanted to sell the R. C. Schedule MulEiies and they have filed the eviction petitions only'to get the petitioner's evicted for the said purpose of selling the rnulgies. The events belb;'t the Rent Controller 16. The l" respondent was examined as P. W. I and the G. P. A. holder ol the 2''d lespondent, her son was examined as P. W. 2. The elder son of 1'' r'espondent was also examined as P. W. 3 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 9 were mark:d on behalf of respondents. 17. During the cross-exarnination ol P. W. I , Exs. l{ I to R. 4 u ere also marked b1' the counsel for petitioners 18. The 1" petitioner was examined as R. W.. i and he marked Exs. R. 5 ro R. 78.
The issues lram,:tl bv the Rent Controllcr 19. The Re nt Controller framed the followins issue: : ''(l) Il',t,lher tha rcspontlents hutc connittetl . r'ill. lul tlat',tult it lttr. r'tpttt of rents. fi't rt Septenhar 201I onrord. s ? (2) ll')lcther tha respondenl nos. l oncl 2 hct'c cotttutittad uct of ;ti nui. rottcL re. spact of petiliofier scheclule nulgi us cttlaqc,l ht thc l3) U'ttt'ther lha requirenent oJ thc pelitiotter . schelule ntuigi b. t the petitionrr. ; Jir eslobli. shing the business tlrcir bonc,ficle',' for sons is (1) I ttether the petitioners are entitled prot,isionl for benefic,crl U/s. 10-l) and l0-C of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent tnd Evictionl Conlrol A(t ? (5) To x,hat relief ? " crp 636&14 2020 Thc ordcr ol thc llcnt Controllcr 20. By order dt. 17. 09. 2018, the Trial Court allowed the R. C. s and directed the petitioners to vacate the R. C.
Schedule Mulgies and hand over vacant physical possession thereof to the respondents within two (02) nronths lrom the date ofthe order. 21, On the aspect of willful default in payment of rents, it referred to the oral and docurrentary evidence on record and held that the respondents could not prove willful default in payment of rents by the petitioners. 22, It also observed that the respondents could not establish that the petitioners committed any acts of nuisance against the respondents in respect of the R. C. Schedule Mulgies and that no evidence rvas addLrced by the respondents in that regard. 23. On the aspect of bona fide requirement of the premises for the son of the 2nd respondent, the Court below referred to Ex. R. 4 Letter -dt. 23. 05. 2013 said to have been written by the respondents to the petitioners wherein the respondents gave a proposal to the petitioner for construction of a new commercial building. 24, But it considered the later document Ex. P. 6 Reply Notice dt. 15.
09. 2014 issued by the respondents wherein the respondents specifically rllentioned that they needed nvo mulgies for their bona fide rcqr. r ircment. I . rp-636&7Ll 2020 25. It nore<l that the petitioners did not sent an), repll' to Ex. R. 4: that in the cr oss-examination of PWs. I to 3, the p,etitioners herein could not elicit anything to disprove the case of the respondents that their rectuirctlLcnt of the R. C. Schedule Mulgies was 1ot bona fidc bLrt mala flcle, 26. It held that Exs. R. 4 and P. 6 clearly indicatecl that responclents inlormed the petitioners that they were in nced of ti c R. C. Schcdule Mulgies for starting their own business; that the respondents had no other propert) other than the R. C. Schedule Mulgies for starting their business ancl the petitioners could not prove that the lespondents were having other commercial premises other than the R. C. Schedule Mulgies in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Sccunderabad.
lt therefore corcluded that the requirement of the R. C. Schedule Mulgies by the respondents is bona fide, pressing and genuine. 27. It horit'r'er held that the respondents could rrot cstablish that respondent nc,s. l and 3 were retired Government ernplovees and no documentarv ,:vidence in support of the said plea hac been filed , and so they canno invoke Section 10-B of the Act. 28. It ho,vr'r'er observed that the 2"d respondent is a widow and respondent nos. l to 3 are Senior Citizens and this was adn. ritted in the cross-examinz tion of R. W. 1. It then held that undel Section l0-C of the Act, they have a right to recover immediate possession of the premises and the petitioners are liable to vacate tlre same in two . months. ctp_636&14 2020 'Ihe order of the Anrrellate Authoritv 29. Chailenging the order of the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioners flled R. C. A. No. 95 ol 2018 and R. C. A. No. 94 of 20 l8 belore the Appellate Authority under the Act. 30.
The lower Appellate Coun re-appreciated the evidence on record and conllnned the findings of the Trial Court. 31. The lower Appellate Couft observed that there was no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Controller holding that the personal requirement of the R. C. Schedule premises by the respondents fbr setting up of hardware and sanitary business by PW. 2 was established. 32. It also relied on the admission of the petitioners that the 2'"1 responclcrrt is a rvidor. v and respondent nos. I and 3 are Senior Citizens. It observed that the l'( respondent had retired as an Inspection Officer in B. E. L. in the year 1996. It observed that the respondents are cntitled to invoke Section 10-B also. 33. It also observed that rnerely because the respondents are well-educated and some of their children are living abroad and they may not have any previous experience in hardware and sanitary business, that factor alone cannot be taken into consideration.
It also observed that there is no bar for starting an hardware and sanitary business by a rnechanical engineer (for the son of the 2nd respondent), and tenants crp_6JO& /4_lUlu cannot dictate anything to the landlords regarding tlle usc ol the R. C SchedLrle prcpelty 34. It also took note of the adn. rission by R. W. l that he is having another shop near the R. C. Schedule Mulgies sinc e 1982 and he is having a gorlown in the said shop which was taken on lease liom the Greater H"""derabad Municipal Corporation. It also observed that the R. C. Schedrrle Mulgies were locked lor the prer ous rronths since Metro Rail 'ilorks were going on resulting in huge dusr in the locality and it was not possible to carry out business comfortabl),. It observed that once Sections 10-B and 10-C ofthe Act have b:en invoked by the respondents, the question of personal requirement of the landlords to set up busincss for the son of the 2nd respondent would take a back se at. The Dresent Ilcv ision 35.
Assailing the same. the present Civil Rer ision l)etitions are 1l led. The considcration bv the Court 'Ihe 36. counsel for petitioners contended thrrt both tlle Courts below havt: erred in directing eviction of the petitioners fl'om the R. C. Schedule lt4ulgies and that they have misread the eviclence on record. He contended that the respondents had offered the R. C. Schedule Mulgies zLnd other properties constructed the rein for sale and \r------ crp_636&14 _2020 prospective buyers / purchasers have visited the same, and this is clear fiorn the evidence olP. W. l. 37, Admittedly, when such off'er of re-construction of the property rvas rnade by the respondents to the petitioners, they did not accept it and the plan did not fructiry. The re-construction was necessitated because ol the Metro Rail Project which resulted in demolition of a pollion ol the constructed area by' the State. 38. He next contended that PW.
I and 3 have admitted in their evidence that their sons were well settled and lived abroad, but he could not dispute the fact that the son of the 2nd respondent was not living abroad; and to enable him to start hardware and sanitary business in the R. C. Schedule Mulgies, eviction of the petitioners haci bcen sought. IVlerely' because the children of respondent nos. 1 and 3 were settled abroad, the petitioners cannot say that the need of the 2"d respondent of the RC schedule rnulgies for doing of business by her son, who is a qualified mechanical engineer, cannot be said to be not bona fide. 39, His further contention is that the respondent no. 2 did not cnter the witness box and that her son was examined as PW. 2, and adverse inference should be drawn against her. 40. I do not agree with the said contention because, the 2nd rcsponderrt is a widou,ed Muslim lady and she intended the R. C Sch"dule Mulgies to be used for the benefit of P. W. 2 only and P. W.
2 I was therefore entitled to give evidence and support the plea o1' 2n'r respondent, rvho because ofher age, status and corlniunity vnould nol rrormally'be in a position to depose as witncss. It is r,rt propel to dravu any adverse inl'erence against her for the above reasons. 41. On the question whether the petitioners can Lrse the other commercial s,pace on the ground floor on the rear side, first floor, second floor and third floor which can be utilized, the Trial Court rightly reliec on the decision of the Supreme Coun in Krish na Kumar Raslogi vs. Sumitra Devirwherein the Supreme Court had held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place lbr business whi:h is most suitable for him, that he has rlorrplete lrecdont in the rnatter and the landlord is the best judge of hi; requirernent and Courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to iioi. ,r and in what manner he should live.
42, The counsel furthel sought to contencl that thc respondents ha\e put up a nolice proposing to again let out the sub. ject R. C. ScheduLe Mulgies tlrr,rugh a advertisement on an flexi-board after the lower Appellate Crurt had passed the impugned order. Br. rt the respondents denied the s,rne. Therefore, the said plea is rejectec.. 43. The er idence on record shows that all tl-re three respondents are Senior Citi::cns and that the son of the 2nd respcndent, fbr rvhose purpose the prernises was sought to be got vacated, rvas living r. vith the 2'"r res:ondent; and in the eviction petition. it is specili,'"rl',' ' Aur 20l. l s c. i6. 15 ::1li: ctp_636&',74 2020 pleaded that the son of the 2nd respondent intends to start a hardware and sanitary business in the R. C. Schedule Mulgies and the other newly constructed area 'fhe 44, 2"d respondent's claim would certainly fall within the Scction l0-C(i) of the Act which enables a widowed landlady to recover immediate possession ol the R. C.
Schedule Mulgies if it is required lor use by her or her family or by anyone living with her lor his or her use. 45. It is not the case of the petitioners that in respect of some other premises which is also non-residential, the 2nd respondent had made a similar application. 16. However, the counsel sought to rely upon a sentence in the cross-examination of P. W. l that they had kept the R. C. Schedule Mulgies for sale. In the very same passage after three lines, P. W. 1 denied the suggestion that there was no personal requirernent lor the respondents and only fbr the purpose of selling the R. C. Schedule Muigies they had fi led the eviction case 47. One stray of sentence in the evidence cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to deny the relief of eviction to the respondents ignoring other circumstances. 48.
It is settled law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, concurent findings of fact recorded by the plimar;'authorit)'and the appellate authority cannot be interfered with crp_636&11 2010 merely on th: ground that a diflerent vierv is possiL le . xrld exccpt on the grouncl ,rf perversity or non-consideration o1' the rnaterial evidence, concurrent findings offact cannot be interlered with. 49. ln this vierv of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petitions, and they are accordingly disrnisse:d. 50. The re;pondents are granted time till 15th of . 1uly,2020 to hand over the vac. rnt and peacef'ul possession of thc R. C. ilchedule Mulgies which are sulrject rnatter of both the R. C. s to the respondents 51. Thel shall also file an undertaking rvithin l0 lavs befbre the I Additionat R. :nt Controller, City Small Causes Court, Ilyderabad that they would \'icate the R. C.
Schedule Mulgies by the saicl date and that they rvould c()rrtinue to pa1' the renls to the responder. t:r t lI then. 52. No order as to costs. 53. As a s equel miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed. SD/. K. SAILESHI REGISTRAR ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY/i I SECTION OFFICER To, 'r'ir#,''. ;14il,*j'if,']rtllf iHit0ililflfl"'lffitrffi CoPte's 5. Two CD mmk HIGH COURT DATED: 1210612020 1 He s T4 'I'l ( {\ i, 2 4 iUN 2020 o ([ + * Frl ,)i; c COMMON ORD[:R *- CRP. No. 636 ancl 74 of 2020 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COS''TS \ -L" I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.