Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 408 (AP)

Amina Anjum v. Mohd. Ishaque

2013-06-07

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : The respondent is th7e tenant of premises owned by the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.3787 of 2002 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for eviction and vacant possession of the premises. The suit was decreed on 31.12.2004 by the trial Court. Challenging the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent filed A.S.No.102 of 2005 in the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2007. The decree passed by the lower Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.313 of 2007 on 20.07.2007. However, the respondent was granted six months time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking to the effect that he would put the petitioner in vacant possession of the premises, within six months, and that he would pay the rents regularly. The respondent filed SLP, Civil Appeal Nos.3469-3470 of 2010 feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the second appeal. The Supreme Court granted stay of eviction of the respondent. However, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 in the civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating, inter alia, that the respondent has violated the undertaking furnished in compliance with the orders of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order dated 26.07.2010 directing that it shall be open to the Executing Court to verify whether the respondent had failed to comply with the undertaking and if it is found that the undertaking has been flouted, it shall open to it to evict the respondent. E.P.No.171 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was taken up by the Executing Court. The plea of the petitioner was that the respondent did not pay the rents, as directed by this Court and undertaken by him. The plea of the respondent was that he deposited the amount through challans, but there was delay in filing of the challans into the Court. Through its order, dated 15.03.2011, the Executing Court dismissed the E.P. observing that there was no violation of undertaking on the part of the respondent. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter was listed on several occasions. Though the respondent entered appearance, there was no representation for him. On 25.04.2013, the matter was directed to be listed ‘for judgment’, on 29.04.2013. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter was listed on several occasions. Though the respondent entered appearance, there was no representation for him. On 25.04.2013, the matter was directed to be listed ‘for judgment’, on 29.04.2013. There was no representation on 29.04.2013 for the respondent. Even today, none appeared for the respondent. As of now, civil appeals are pending in relation to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. At one stage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted stay of eviction also. However, in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “The respondent landlady Amina Anjum shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the decree and satisfy the Execution Court that the petitioner Mohammed Ishaque failed to comply with the undertaking given by him in the High Court. We make it clear that in case if the Execution Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to comply with the undertaking given by him, appropriate orders directing his eviction shall be passed.” The undertaking furnished by the respondent before the trial Court reads : “I, Mohammed Ishaque s/o Mohammed Qasim aged 45 years, occupation Business in Mulgi No.12-2-831/3/B Mahdipatnam, Hyderabad, do hereby undertake that I will handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit mulgi within a period of six months, I will pay the rents regularly and that I am in possession of the suit mulgi.” It is important to note that the undertaking is not only as regards handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises, within six months, but also to pay the rents regularly. The record discloses that before the petitioner filed the suit for eviction, the respondent filed R.C.No.340 of 1999 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, seeking permission to deposit the rents. The rents were being deposited to the credit of R.C.No.340 of 1999, from the year 1999 onwards. The petitioner has filed before the Court, the certified copies of the ledgers, pertaining to R.C.No.340 of 1999, from the year 1999 onwards. The undertaking given by the respondent was on 23.07.2007. From August, 2007 onwards, he was under obligation to pay the rents. The petitioner has filed before the Court, the certified copies of the ledgers, pertaining to R.C.No.340 of 1999, from the year 1999 onwards. The undertaking given by the respondent was on 23.07.2007. From August, 2007 onwards, he was under obligation to pay the rents. A perusal of the ledger account for the year 2007-2008 discloses that the rents for the months of June, July and August, 2007 were deposited on 08.10.2007 and rents for the months of September and October, 2007 were deposited on 20.11.2007. Thereafter, the rent for six months was deposited only on 08.08.2008. This clearly discloses that the respondent did not comply with the undertaking given by him, and thereby, flouted the orders of this Court also. The Executing Court, however, has proceeded on the assumption that once the rents are paid, may be at a belated stage, the undertaking is honoured. This Court finds it difficult to accept that view point. Once the direction of this Court and the consequential undertaking, is to pay the rents ‘regularly’, it is only deposit of the rents form month to month that can constitute the compliance. There is a violation of undertaking given by the respondent. Further, even if the payment of rent is to the credit of RC, Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1960 mandates that the notice of deposit of the amount shall be served on the landlord or their representative forthwith. Such a step was not taken in the instant case. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. In the result, the E.P. shall stand allowed and the Executing Court shall put the petitioner in possession of the premises forthwith in accordance with law. Such possession shall, however, be subject to the further orders, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court may pass in the civil appeal pending before it. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall stand disposed of.