Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 913 (AP)

Sabir v. Syed Fareeduddin Sabri

2000-12-08

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2000
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant C. R. P. challenges the judgment of the learned additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 43 of 1996 dated 21-8-2000 reversing the order passed by the learned IV Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad in R. C. No. 215 of 1992 dated 12-12-1995. ( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed eviction petition against the petitioner seeking recovery of possession of the petition schedule property. According to the averments made in the eviction petition, the respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. 5-6-605 situated at inside Dargah Hazarath Shah Khamoosh sahab Quibla at Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the tenant and rent of rs. 100/- per month was payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. According to the respondent-landlord, the tenancy is attorned by a lease deed at the inception of tenancy and thereafter the petitioner is being continued. It is alleged that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rents from October, 1991 to March, 1992. Hence the eviction petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein resisted the eviction petition. However, he has admitted that he is a tenant in the petition schedule premises. It was also admitted that rent payable thereof is Rs. 100/- per month. However, the petitioner herein raised the plea disputing the ownership of the respondent. The property according to the petitioner belongs to the wakf and the respondent herein let out the same to the petitioner in his capacity as Mutawalli. However, the petitioner herein denied that he is a wilful defaulter. According to him, the practice between the parties is that the landlord used to come and collect the rents at his convenience once in four months, five months and six months or ten months and there is no practice of payment of rent month by month. ( 4 ) THE learned Rent Controller upon appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record rejected the eviction petition holding that the petition schedule premises is wakf property and the respondent herein failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the ownership of the property. The respondent herein preferred R. A. No. 43 of 1996 and the same is allowed by the learned appellate judge. The respondent herein preferred R. A. No. 43 of 1996 and the same is allowed by the learned appellate judge. Hence this C. R. P. ( 5 ) THE learned appellate Judge upon appreciation of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the petition schedule property was taken on lease by the petitioner from the respondent on payment of rents. The petitioner was admittedly paying the rents to the respondent treating him as the landlord within the meaning of the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960. He admits the factum of payment of rents to the petitioner in the evidence as well as in the counter. The petitioner herein at no point of time denied the ownership of the respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises. Under those circumstances, the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner herein failed to establish that the premises belong to the wakf property. The learned appellate Judge found on the basis of the material available on record that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rents. In fact, there is no serious dispute as such about the petitioner committing wilful default in payment of rents. In my considered opinion, the findings of the learned appellate Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned appellate Judge is absolutely right in finding that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner. Denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is only an afterthought. There is no such plea taken by him in the counter. On the other hand, there is a clear admission by the petitioner about his being the tenant of the respondent. ( 6 ) I do not find any merit in the C. R. P. and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, four months time from today is granted for handing over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent herein.