Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 375 (TS)

Mohammed Arifuddin Khan v. Arif Uddin Dawood

2020-03-12

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.11.12.2019 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2018 of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dt.11.12.2017 in I.A.No.591 of 2017 in O.S.No.1797 of 2017 of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The plea of the petitioner in the suit 3. He filed the said suit against the respondents for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property except through due process of law. 4. In the suit, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is a tenant inducted by the father of the 1st respondent in the suit schedule premises under an oral tenancy for godown purposes; that the tenancy commenced in the year 2000; and that the monthly rent was Rs. 1,000/- ,which at the time of filing of the suit had been enhanced to Rs. 1,900/-. 5. He contended that the 1st respondent was a permanent citizen of the United States of America and had been staying there since 1988; that the petitioner and the 1st respondent were childhood friends; and the petitioner used to take care of the father of the 1st respondent who died on 26.05.2017. 6. It is contended that after the death of his father, the 1st respondent with the support of the 2nd respondent started preparing documents to illegally evict the petitioner by force though the petitioner voluntarily accepted for attornment of tenancy in favour of the 1st respondent and agreed to pay rents; that the respondents were trying to illegally evict the petitioner from the suit schedule property and they approached the Electricity Department to get disconnected the power supply to the suit schedule property on 14.07.2017, but the disconnection did not happen; that he approached the police on 19.07.2017 to take legal action against the respondents for threatening to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but they refused to entertain any complaint as the matter was civil in nature and directed the petitioner to approach Court of law for redressal. I.A.No.591 of 2017 - the temporary injunction application 7. I.A.No.591 of 2017 - the temporary injunction application 7. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.591 of 2017 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property reiterating the contents of the plaint. The Written statement of the 2nd respondent 8. Written Statement was filed by the 2nd respondent in the suit contending that there is no documentary evidence filed by the petitioner to establish that he was the tenant in the suit schedule property. 9. The 2nd respondent denied that the petitioner was a tenant of the father of the 1st respondent. 10. He contended that the 1st respondent was the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased it under registered sale deed dt.28.07.1988 which was filed by the petitioner himself. 11. It was denied that any rent receipts were issued by the father of the 1st respondent to the petitioner during his life time. 12. The 2nd respondent contended that after the death of the 1st respondent's father on 26.07.2017, with the consent of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent was in physical possession of the suit schedule property as a care-taker and continued to be in occupation thereof on the date of filing of the suit. 13. He also claimed that the 1st respondent executed Power of Attorney in his favour on 22.06.2017 mentioning that with the consent of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent was in possession of the suit schedule property. He denied that the petitioner was threatened by him and asked to vacate the suit schedule property and it is specifically pleaded that the petitioner was not in physical possession of the suit schedule property. 14. Counter-Affidavit was filed in I.A.No.591 of 2017 taking similar pleas. The order of the trial court in IA No.591 of 2017 15. In the trial Court, the petitioner marked Ex.P1 photo copy of the sale deed dt.28.07.1988 and Ex.P2 photo copy of the letter marked with consent addressed by the 1st respondent to Telangana State Central Power Distribution Company Limited for disconnection of the service meter to the suit schedule premises, and Ex.P3 photographs. No documents were marked for the respondents. 16. Initially, status quo order was granted in favour of the petitioner, but on 11.12.2017, the said order was vacated and I.A.No.591 of 2017 was dismissed by the trial Court. 17. No documents were marked for the respondents. 16. Initially, status quo order was granted in favour of the petitioner, but on 11.12.2017, the said order was vacated and I.A.No.591 of 2017 was dismissed by the trial Court. 17. The trial Court held that the 1st respondent was the owner of the premises and though the petitioner pleaded that he was a tenant under the father of the 1st respondent, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st respondent and the petitioner during the life time of the father of the 1st respondent; and there was no document filed by the petitioner to show that he was using the suit schedule property as godown premises as even a trade licence or other relevant documents were not filed by the petitioner. 18. It held that after the death of the father of 1st respondent, the suit was filed as an after- thought taking advantage of the absence of the 1st respondent in India; that no tax receipt or any other document was filed to show the possession of the petitioner from 2000 onwards in the suit schedule property; that it was falsely pleaded that he obtained the premises on rent from the father of the 1st respondent and failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, and consequently he is not entitled to any interim relief. C.M.A.No.2 of 2018 19. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2018 before the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 20. The said Appeal was also dismissed on 11.12.2019. 21. The lower Appellate Court observed that the photographs contained in the CD show that the premises was being used for storage of some articles, but there is nothing to show that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st respondent and the petitioner or that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises as a tenant. It also held that the petitioner failed to show that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant during the life time of the father of the 1st respondent or thereafter. The Present Revision 22. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 23. Heard both sides. 24. It also held that the petitioner failed to show that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant during the life time of the father of the 1st respondent or thereafter. The Present Revision 22. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 23. Heard both sides. 24. From the facts narrated above, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased it under registered sale deed dt.28.07.1988, a copy of which was marked by the petitioner himself in the trial Court as Ex.P1. 25. According to the petitioner, he was the tenant initially under the father of the 1st respondent from the year 2000 and was paying rents at Rs. 1,000/- per month initially which got enhanced to Rs. 1,900/- per month at the time of filing of the suit and that the respondents were trying to evict him from the suit schedule property illegally without following due process of law. 26. The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he is in occupation of the suit schedule property that too as a tenant. 27. Though the petitioner sought to contend that he was using the suit schedule premises as godown, no trade licence or other documents are filed to prove his usage of the suit schedule premises as godown. No rent receipts or lease deed existed showing that there was any tenancy between the petitioner and the father of the 1st respondent or between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. 28. Though counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the photographs contained in Ex.P3 CD, on the basis of such photographs, no presumption can be drawn about possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property or the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st respondent and the petitioner. 29. Both the Courts have concurrently held that there is no evidence to prove the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The said findings cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 30. Accordingly, the Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. 31. The said findings cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 30. Accordingly, the Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. 31. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.