Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1430 (AP)

Mohd. Khasim (died) by L. Rs. v. G. Meera Bai

2006-11-17

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-12-2003 passed in R.A.No.94 of 1999 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady in respect of the mulgi bearing NO.23-1-1 031 situated at Kaman Moghalpura, Hyderabad. Originally the first petitioner herein alone was the tenant against whom the respondent herein filed eviction petition in R.C.No.356 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, denial of title is not bona fide and that the said premises is required for the personal occupation of the landlady to commence business by her son as there was no other non-residential premises under her occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition by order dated 10-12-1998. Aggrieved by the said order the landlady preferred an appeal in RANo.94 of 1999 and during the pendency of the appeal the original tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6. The rent appellate Court by judgment dated 16-12-2003 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, that the ground of denial of title is not bona fide and that the said premises is required for the personal occupation of landlady for the purpose of commencing business by her son. 3. Assailing the said judgment the tenants filed this revision petition contending that the denial of title is bona fide as the relationship of the landlady and tenant has not been established and that the said premises is not at all bona fidely required by the landlady and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate Court is erroneous and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence as the landlady has not at all proved her ownership and as per the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Moizuddin Siddiqui v. Mohd. Ismail the appellate Court has to necessarily meet the findings and all the reasons given in support thereof while reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller. Moizuddin Siddiqui v. Mohd. Ismail the appellate Court has to necessarily meet the findings and all the reasons given in support thereof while reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller. But in the instant case, the appellate Court independently arrived at different reasons from that of the Rent Controller, therefore, the judgment of the Rent appellate Court is illegal and unsustainable. 4. It is the case of the landlady in her eviction petition that she is the owner of the mulgi bearing NO.23-1-1 031 situated at Kaman Moghalpura, Hyderabad and the respondent is the tenant. It is stated that the said mulgi originally belonged to her father-in-law, G.Babaiah, who died in 1991. The said Babaiah inducted the tenant in possession of the said mulgi in 1972 initially at a monthly rent of Rs.60/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.80/-, again enhanced to RS.100/- and finally it was enhanced to Rs.125/- per month. It is stated that the said mulgi was allotted to her in the family settlement with the consent of other family members of late G.Babaiah and thus, she became owner of the said mulgi and she is entitled to receive the rents. It is further stated that she gave Ex-A 1 legal notice dated 08-01-1996 to the tenant claiming arrears of rent and demanding eviction on the ground of self-occupation and the tenant issued Ex.A-2 reply notice dated 13-01-1996 admitting that he used to pay RS.125/- per month to G. Babaiah under the impression that he is owner of the mulgi. It is stated that the tenant also filed O.S.No.1300 of 1988 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which he admitted that he is the tenant of said Babaiah and paid rents to him. In the said suit, the tenant himself filed the rent receipts up to July 1985 and thus, there is no dispute with regard to tenancy as per the reply notice, but the tenant dishonestly and mala fidely denied the title in the said reply. It is stated that the rents were not paid from August 1985 to May 1986 amounting to Rs.16,250/- and the arrears have not been paid in spite of written notice Ex.A-1, therefore, there is wilful default in payment of rents. It is stated that the rents were not paid from August 1985 to May 1986 amounting to Rs.16,250/- and the arrears have not been paid in spite of written notice Ex.A-1, therefore, there is wilful default in payment of rents. It is stated that the said premises is required for the personal occupation to commence and carryon milk vendor business by her son as she is not occupying any other non-residential premises of her own. 5. The tenant filed a counter stating that he is not aware of the relationship of the landlady with late G.Babaiah and the other allegations made by the landlady are put to strict proof and contents of Para 3 of the eviction petition are denied for want of knowledge. He stated that the landlady is not entitled to file the eviction case in the capacity of landlady against him, as there is no relationship of tenant and landlady between them. It is admitted that he was paying rents at Rs.125/- per month under the impression that late Babaiah was the owner of the said mulgi, but when it transpired that the mulgi belonged to third party he stopped paying the rents to Babaiah. It is stated that after three years of stoppage, when the said Babaiah tried to evict him by use of force, he filed suit in O.S.No. 1300 of 1988, which was abated due to the death of Babaiah. It is stated that he not only denied the title of the landlady but also the very jural relationship of lessor and lessee. 6. Based on the said pleadings, the points that were considered by the learned Rent Controller were, as to whether there is any jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent; whether there was any wilful default in payment of rents; whether the denial of title is mala fide and whether the said premises is required for the personal occupation of the son of the landlady. All the questions were held against the landlady by the learned Rent Controller, against which the appeal preferred by the landlady was allowed reversing the findings of the lower Court. 7. All the questions were held against the landlady by the learned Rent Controller, against which the appeal preferred by the landlady was allowed reversing the findings of the lower Court. 7. The points that arise for consideration are as to whether the landlady established her title; whether the denial of title is bona tide; whether the relationship of the landlady and tenant is established; whether the nonpayment of rents by the tenant is wilful and whether the landlady requires the said premises for bona tide purpose to commence business by her son. 8. The landlady was examined as P.W.1. and Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked. The tenant was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. 9. The facts as admitted by the tenant in his cross-examination on 30-10-1998 are that he was inducted in the said premises by the father-in-law of the landlady in 1972 and he paid rents from 1972 to 1985 to Babaiah. But when he came to know that Babaiah was not the owner of the mulgi he filed suit a.s. No. 1300 of 1988. The plaint filed in the said suit, marked as EX.A 14, goes to show that the tenant was in occupation of the said mulgi since 1972 and at the commencement of tenancy the monthly rent was Rs.60/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.80/-, then to RS.100/- and finally to RS.125/- at the instance of the landlord, Babaiah. It is stated that he was paying the rents regularly to Babaiah, for which he used to pass on the receipts either on a printed form or slips of paper. The tenant had been running a comb-manufacturing unit in the said mulgi. The rental receipts have also been filed in the said suit. It is stated that the said Babaiah wanted to increase the rent and unless the rents were increased he threatened to dispose (sic. dispossess) him and therefore. he filed the said suit for injunction. 10. It IS the case of the landlady that she became the owner of the said mulgi by virtue of the settlement deed and originally the said mulgi belonged to her father-in-law, Babaiah. As per EX.A-12 release deed she became the owner of the said mulgi, as per EX.A-7 plan the said mulgi was allotted to her and the tenant himself admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant between Babaiah and himself. As per EX.A-12 release deed she became the owner of the said mulgi, as per EX.A-7 plan the said mulgi was allotted to her and the tenant himself admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant between Babaiah and himself. As per EX.A-3 sale deed originally the property was purchased in the name of the husband of the landlady viz., G. Yadaiah in 1957. Thereafter, there was a partlticn between Babaiah and his brother, Sayanna, as per deed of partition EX.A-5 dated 20-12-1968, which goes to show that the Smt. Lingamma, the mother of Sayanna and Babaiah, purchased the properties as benami in the name of her family members and she died in 1964 and in the partition, A schedule properties fell to the share of Sayanna and B Schedule properties fell to the share of Babaiah. SI.No.3 of the B schedule properties relate to the petition schedule property viz. house bearing No. 23-1-1031, Moghalpura, which was purchased as per the registered sale deed in the name of the husband of the landlady and bounded on the North by Moghlpura Kaman, South by Road, East by house of Salayar Khan and West by Road. The registered plan in respect of each and every property was also enclosed along with the partition deed. Under EX.A-7 registered plan, it (Vas described that the donors of the said property late G. Babaiah and G. Yadaiah, the husband of the landlady, settled the property in favour of the landlady, Meera Bai. Though the said property was in the name of the husband of the landlady, he released the said property in the name of his father G.Babaiah to his wife Meera Bai under EX.A-12 release deed, but 3.S per clause of the said deed it was mentioned that the said property was released n the name of G.Babaiah and Sayanna so is to enable them to partition the joint family properties but in the clause it is stated that he releaser G. Yadaiah consented to release he said mulgi allotted to his share by his father to his wife Meera Bai. Thus, it is the case of the landlady that by virtue of the said release deed Ex.A-12 coupled with Ex.A-7, the said mulgi has fallen to her share in the family settlement and she became the owner of the said mulgi. 11. Thus, it is the case of the landlady that by virtue of the said release deed Ex.A-12 coupled with Ex.A-7, the said mulgi has fallen to her share in the family settlement and she became the owner of the said mulgi. 11. It is stated that though she was the owner of the said mulgi, on her behalf only her father-in-law leased out the said mulgi to the tenant. It is true that the landlady never collected any rents and she never visited the said premises. Late Babaiah died in 1991. It is also not in dispute that the rents were being paid continuously in favour of Babaiah up to July 1985 and the tenant himself in Ex. A-14 plaint in O.S.No.1300 of 1088 admitted the relationship of the late Babaiah and himself as landlord and tenant and further admitted that the rents were paid up to July 1985 to Babaiah and from August 1985 no rents have been paid either to Babaiah or anybody. 12. It is the case of the tenant that the property tax bills show the name of Md. Yusuf as the owner of the said mulgi but not late Babaiah or the landlady, which were filed as Exs. B-1 to B-4. 13. I am of the opinion that merely because the name of either late Babaiah or the landlady has not been mutated in the municipal records it cannot be said that the person whose name is shown in the property tax bills is the owner of the said property. Admittedly there is no claim from any third party with regard to the ownership either claiming title or demanding the rents. It is also pertinent to note that under Ex.A-13 late Babaiah signed the notice of transfer to be given when the transfer of the said property has been effected by instrument, at the place of transferor, showing that he transferred the said property in the name of the landlady - Meera Bai. 14. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that there is no evidence in proof of filing the said form. It is true that there is no evidence that the said document was considered to the effect that the form contains the signature of Babaiah and his intention to transfer the said property in favour of the landlady Meera Bai, which is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. 15. It is true that there is no evidence that the said document was considered to the effect that the form contains the signature of Babaiah and his intention to transfer the said property in favour of the landlady Meera Bai, which is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. 15. It is not in dispute that the said release deed Ex. A-12, which was simultaneously executed on the date of deed of partition Ex.A-5, contains the signature of Meera Bai where it is shown that the releaser G. Yadaiah consented to release the mulgies allotted to his share by his father G. Babaiah to his wife Meera Bai. Thus, I am of the opinion that as against the title claimed by the landlady no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the tenant, therefore, it cannot be said that the denial of title is bona fide. 16. The other question that arises for consideration is as to whether the relationship of the landlady and the tenant has been established. 17. As admitted by the tenant in the plaint copy under Ex.A-14 he was inducted into the premises in 1972 and he paid rents regularly up to July 1985. If that be so, the relationship of the landlord and the tenants between late Babaiah and tenant is not in dispute. As per the release deed the property has fallen to the share of the landlady in 1968 itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the landlady is not the owner of the said mulgi. The rents can be collected by any member of the family or an authorized representative or an agent on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, I am of the opinion that after the death of the father-in-law of the landlady, the landlady continues to be the landlady and though her father-in-law inducted the tenant in the said mulgi, it cannot be said that she did not receive the rents from her father-in-law. Once the rents have been received either through any agent or authorized representative, the respondent continues to be the landlady and the relationship of the landlady and tenant is established. Admittedly, the rents have not been paid from August 1985. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is wilful default in payment of rents on the part of the tenant. 18. Admittedly, the rents have not been paid from August 1985. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is wilful default in payment of rents on the part of the tenant. 18. Insofar as the bona fide requirement of the said premises to commence business by the son of landlady is concerned, absolutely no rebuttal evidence has been adduced either with regard to the fact that the landlady is having another non-residential premises or with regard to contention that her son does not require the said premises for milk-vendor business. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said premises is also bona fidely required by the landlady for the purpose of commencing and carrying on milk-vendor business by her son. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rent appellate Court rightly held all the aforesaid issues in favour of the landlady and ordered eviction of the tenants by giving cogent reasons while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller. 20. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants requests this Court to grant certain time to vacate and handover the vacant possession subject to payment of entire arrears of rent and to continue to deposit the rents. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the order under revision and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenants are granted five months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the said mulgi to the landlady on or before 30-04-2007 subject to the condition that the tenants deposit entire arrears of rents within one month from to-day and also file an undertaking within one month from to-day, by filling proof of deposit of arrears, before the Rent Controller and that they shall continue to deposit the subsequent rents regularly by 5th of every succeeding month and that they shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the said mulgi on or before 30-04-2007. On deposit of the said arrears the landlady is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and if the arrears are not deposited and if the tenants fail to deposit the subsequent rents, it is open for the landlady to execute the eviction proceedings. On deposit of the said arrears the landlady is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and if the arrears are not deposited and if the tenants fail to deposit the subsequent rents, it is open for the landlady to execute the eviction proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.