Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 268 (AP)

D. Suresh Kumar v. Mohd. Dastagiri

2013-04-04

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
ORDER 1. These two revisions are between the same parties and in relation to the same premises. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. The petitioner is tenant of the deceased 1st respondent (for short ‘respondent’) as regards the respective suit schedule properties situated at Feelkhana, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The tenancy commenced in the year 1980 with monthly rent of Rs.35/- for each of the mulgies. The respondent filed R.C. No.288 of 2002 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner by raising grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and mala fide denial of title. It was pleaded that the rent for a period of 43 months @ Rs.135/- was not paid and though the premises was taken on lease from the respondent, the petitioner filed O.S. No.39 of 2000 in the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, denying the title of the respondent. Through order, dated 06-04-2004, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C. and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed R.A. No.125 of 2004 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through order, dated 26-06-2008, against which CRP No.3550 of 2008 is filed. After dismissal of the Rent Appeal, the respondent filed E.P. No.13 of 2008. In that E.P., the petitioner filed E.A. No.10 of 2009 under Rule – 1 of Order – XVI CPC with a prayer to summon four witnesses to depose in the E.P. According to him, the respondent forged a sale deed in favour of Mohammed Fasiuddin, who filed O.S. No.54 of 2008 before the A.P. Walf Tribunal and in view of the stand taken therein, it is necessary to summon all the witnesses. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court on 16-02-2009. The same is challenged in CRP No.1079 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises were owned by the A.P. Wakf Board and the respondent was only the Mutawalli of the Wakf. He contends that the petitioner is the tenant of the Wakf Board and the respondent has no authority to initiate proceedings for eviction. The same is challenged in CRP No.1079 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises were owned by the A.P. Wakf Board and the respondent was only the Mutawalli of the Wakf. He contends that the petitioner is the tenant of the Wakf Board and the respondent has no authority to initiate proceedings for eviction. Learned counsel submits that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority did not take into account the fact that the Wakf Board itself issued proceedings in relation to the premises and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for ordering eviction of the petitioner. He submits that the Executing Court ought to have summoned the witnesses named in E.A. No.10 of 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the petitioner himself took the premises on rent from the respondent, under a rental deed, marked as Ex.P-9, it was not at all open to him to dispute the title. He submits that the petitioner did not dispute the fact that he discontinued payment of rents to the respondents and default was spread over for a period of two years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself filed O.S No.1458 of 1992 wherein he not only stated that the respondent is landlord, but also the Wakf Board has no right over the premises and in that view of the matter, there were no basis for the stand taken by him in the present set of proceedings. 5. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises by raising two grounds, viz., denial of title and wilful default in payment of rents. The petitioner did not dispute that he did not pay the rents to the respondent for quite a considerable period. However, the plea raised by him was that the A.P. Wakf Board is the owner of the premises and that the respondent was acting only as a Mutawalli. The Rent Control Court framed the following points for its consideration: i) Whether the demised premises is Wakf property and if so whether this Rent Controller has jurisdiction to try the R.C.? ii) Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rent from January 1999 to July 2002? iii) Whether the denial title of the respondent is bonafide? 6. The respondent deposed as PW-1 and a Court witness, by name, M.A. Gaffar, was also examined. ii) Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rent from January 1999 to July 2002? iii) Whether the denial title of the respondent is bonafide? 6. The respondent deposed as PW-1 and a Court witness, by name, M.A. Gaffar, was also examined. Exs.P-1 to P-15 were filed. Important among them is Ex.P-9 Rental Deed in respect of the premises, between the petitioner and the respondent and the judgment in O.S. No.1854 of 1992, marked as Ex.P-6. Ex.P-4 is the Official Gazette, dated 09-05-1985. The petitioner deposed as RW-1 and he filed Exs.R-1 to R-12. He filed 3 Gazettes Exs.R-1 to R-3 and judgments and proceedings in various proceedings. Exs.C-1 and X-1 were also taken on record. 7. The R.C. was allowed by recording findings on all the three points in favour of the respondent. In R.A. No.125 of 2004, the Appellate Authority framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is bonafide or not, if so, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the petitioner schedule premises? 2. Whether the tenant committed any default in payment of rents from January 1999 to July 2002 @ Rs.135/- p.m. amounting to Rs.5,085/-, does it amount to wilful default, if so, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises? The appeal was dismissed. 8. In case the plea of the petitioner that the respondent is not the landlord is accepted, the controversy pertaining to wilful default in payment of rents, virtually becomes insignificant. If on the other hand, the denial of title is held to be not bona fide, he deserves to be evicted on that ground alone. Apart from that, the petitioner did not dispute that he did not pay rent to the respondent for a period 43 months. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner, was bona fide. 9. The plea of the petitioner was that the premises are owned by the Wakf Board and the respondent was only a Mutawalli of the Wakf. In case, he was inducted into the premises by the Wakf Board, and the respondent was only receiving rents in his capacity as Mutawalli, the contention of the petitioner certainly deserved acceptance. 9. The plea of the petitioner was that the premises are owned by the Wakf Board and the respondent was only a Mutawalli of the Wakf. In case, he was inducted into the premises by the Wakf Board, and the respondent was only receiving rents in his capacity as Mutawalli, the contention of the petitioner certainly deserved acceptance. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner was inducted into possession of the premises, as a tenant by the respondent through Ex.P-9. Both of them were parties to that. There is no reference to the Wakf Board in Ex.P-9. Once the relationship between the parties was covered by a rental deed, it is not at all open to the petitioner to deny the title of the respondent, even if there existed any dispute between the respondent on the one hand and the third parties, on the other. 10. It is quite possible to argue that even if the rental deed was executed, the petitioner treated the respondent only as a representative of the Wakf Board. In such a case, the conduct is required to be consistent. Long after the tenancy commenced, the petitioner received a notice from the Wakf Board, for payment of rents. Soon thereafter, he filed O.S No.1854 of 1992 for the relief of injunction against the Wakf Board. He not only pleaded that the respondent is the absolute owner of the premises, but also that the Wakf Board has no right or authority vis-à-vis the same. This clinched the issue, from the point of view of the petitioner. Having taken such a categorical stand before a Court of law, it was not at all open to the petitioner to deny the title of the respondent. The mere fact that the proceedings came to be instituted before the Wakf Tribunal or any other Forum in relation to the premises, does not make any difference so far as the status of the petitioner as a tenant vis-à-vis the respondent, is concerned. 11. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner did not pay the rents for the premises for about 3 ½ years, before the R.C.C. came to be filed. The ground of wilful default is established. 12. The Rent Controller has discussed the matter at length with reference to the precedents, cited by the parties and has arrived at just and proper conclusion. The ground of wilful default is established. 12. The Rent Controller has discussed the matter at length with reference to the precedents, cited by the parties and has arrived at just and proper conclusion. Though the proceedings under the A.P. Rent Control Act are supposed to be summary in nature, the case was adjudicated as if it is an ordinary civil suit. The discussion undertaken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority proceeded on sound lines and the conclusions arrived at by them, are perfectly legal. This Court is not inclined to disturb the findings. 13. Accordingly, CRP No.3550 of 2008 is dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to grant time of one year to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The same is opposed by the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the tenancy is in existence for a long time, the petitioner is granted time till 31-12-2013, subject to his filing of an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he would put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31-12-2013 and would pay the rents regularly. In case, there are any arrears of rents, they shall be cleared within a period of one month from today. 15. Coming to CRP No.1079 of 2009, proceedings therein disclose that the petitioner wanted to expand the scope of the execution proceedings and in effect, wanted to doubt the correctness of the order of eviction. This is totally impermissible and the CRP is dismissed, accordingly. 16. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revision petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.