Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 377 (TS)

M. Surender v. Mohammed Hasan Bagan

2020-03-12

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Section 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 challenging the order dt.06.01.2020 in R.C.A.No.77 of 2018 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dt.17.07.2018 in R.C.No.47 of 2017 of the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad. R.C.No.47 of 2017 2. R.C.No.47 of 2017 was filed by the respondents against the petitioner contending that they are the absolute owners of the RC schedule property having purchased it under registered sale deed dt.17.11.2016; that the petitioner is the tenant paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/-; there was attornment of tenancy by the petitioner to the respondents pursuant to the letter dt.12.12.2016 addressed by the vendors of the respondents to the petitioner with effect from November, 2016; the respondents also sent letter dt.28.03.2017 requesting the petitioner to pay monthly rents; but the petitioner failed and neglected to pay rents and even gave a reply on 19.05.2017 with false allegations. 3. They contended that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents from 01.04.2017 to 30.11.2017 amounting to Rs. 13,600/-. 4. They also alleged that the petitioner was not doing business personally and inducted a sub-tenant into the RC schedule property who was selling non-judicial stamp papers and on the ground of subletting also, the petitioner was liable to be evicted. The nature of the RC schedule property 5. The RC schedule property is a non-residential premises located in St.Mary's Road, Secunderabad, described clearly in the RC schedule. The counter affidavit in the RC of the petitioner 6. Counter was filed by the petitioner opposing the said Application and denying that he is a willful defaulter or that he had sublet the RC schedule property. 7. He denied that he had any knowledge about the purchase by the respondents of the RC schedule property, but admitted that he was a tenant of the said premises paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/-. He denied receipt of the letters dt.12.12.2016 and 28.03.2017 asking him to pay rents to the respondents. 8. 7. He denied that he had any knowledge about the purchase by the respondents of the RC schedule property, but admitted that he was a tenant of the said premises paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/-. He denied receipt of the letters dt.12.12.2016 and 28.03.2017 asking him to pay rents to the respondents. 8. He contended that his father was an Advocate by profession and was also a Notary and was operating from the RC schedule property having taken it on lease from the previous owners; that after the death of his father, the petitioner continued the said business with the help of Sri M.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Smt. Jaya Gouri and was paying regularly rents to the previous owners; that the previous owners tried to evict him from the RC schedule premises and so he filed R.C.No.56 of 2009 before the Principal Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Secunderabad under Section 8(5) of the Act requesting permission to deposit the fair rent of Rs. 1,700/- per month and the RC was decreed on 24.12.2011. 9. He contended that the earlier owners tried to evict him by filing R.C.No.220 of 2008 before the Principal Rent Controller which was dismissed on 04.06.2012. He alleged that he himself wanted to purchase the RC schedule property at the market value, but the respondents persuaded the original owners not to sell it to him and that they would get the building demolished through GHMC and Metro Rail officials. 10. He contended that he filed W.P.No.27010 of 2016 against the GHMC and the previous owners and obtained interim order on 20.06.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.33442 of 2016 to restrain the GHMC from evicting him or demolishing the structure. 11. He contended that the sale deed dt.17.11.2016 executed by the previous owners in favour of the respondents is a false and fabricated one. 12. He then contradicted his earlier statement and stated that he got a notice from the previous owners and also from the respondents about changing in ownership of the property. 13. He contended that he was eking out livelihood on the earnings yielding from the RC schedule property which is now being managed by Sri M. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Smt. Jyothi Laxmi who were carrying on activities of notary and stamp vendor respectively in the RC schedule property. 13. He contended that he was eking out livelihood on the earnings yielding from the RC schedule property which is now being managed by Sri M. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Smt. Jyothi Laxmi who were carrying on activities of notary and stamp vendor respectively in the RC schedule property. He alleged that he had allowed the old Notary Office to run after the death of his father and cater to the needs of the people who regularly come to City Civil Court, Secunderabad for redressal of their grievances. He stated that there is a fulltime Clerk by name Kishore working since 25 years; that there is a full time Typist also by name B.Vijaya Laxmi working therein; that the licences of these persons were being renewed from time to time; and there are no merits in the plea of the respondents about the sub-tenancy having been created by him. The order of the Rent Controller 14. Before the Rent Controller, the respondents examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and the petitioner examined R.Ws.1and 2 and marked Exs.R1 to R20. 15. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Controller allowed R.C.No.47 of 2017 and directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the RC schedule property to the respondents in two months. 16. The Rent Controller considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and held that the petitioner had committed willful default in payment of rent from 01.04.2017 to 30.11.2017 amounting to Rs. 13,600/- and he had also sublet the RC schedule property to Sri M.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Smt. Jyothi Laxmi. 17. The Rent Controller held that there was change of ownership from the erstwhile owners of the RC schedule property to the respondents pursuant to Ex.P1 registered sale deed dt.17.11.2016; that thereafter, the erstwhile owners had given attornment notice Ex.P2 dt.12.12.2016 which was received by the petitioner and the respondents had also issued letter Ex.P5 dt.28.03.2017 to the petitioner informing about the change in ownership, but instead of paying rents to the respondents, the petitioner continued to deposit rents to the credit of R.C.No.56 of 2009 which he had filed against the previous owners though the petitioner was aware that the respondents are not parties to it and therefore, cannot withdraw the amounts credited in the said R.C. 18. It also noted the statement of the petitioner that he had never asked the respondents to furnish their bank account particulars for making deposit of rents. 19. It observed that when under Ex.P1 title to the property had been changed and the respondents became owners thereof, it was the duty of the petitioner to pay rents to the respondents and any deposit made by the petitioner in R.C.No.56 of 2009 after the change of ownership would not be valid tender of rent to the respondents. It therefore held that there is willful default in payment of rents by the petitioner. 20. On the aspect of subletting, it considered the evidence on record and observed that R.W.1 admitted that he is Engineer working in Mallapur and he is also having office at Banjara Hills and that M.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and his wife Jyothi Laxmi were conducting Notary Office and stamp vending business in the RC schedule premises. It also took note of the evidence of the petitioner as R.W.2 that he has nothing to do with the Notary Office and that he was not doing any business in the RC schedule property. It therefore came to the conclusion that though the petitioner was not doing any business in the RC schedule property, he had allowed M.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Jyothi Laxmi to do the business of notary and stamp vending therein and this amounts to subletting. RCA No.77 of 2018 21. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.77 of 2018 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 22. The said Appeal was also dismissed on 06.01.2020 confirming the findings of the Rent Controller. 23. The lower Appellate Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner should have been informed by the erstwhile owners before selling the property to the respondents. 24. It also stated that the respondents are not parties in R.C.No.56 of 2009 and once the petitioner received intimation about change of ownership of the property, he ought not to have deposited rents to the credit of R.C.No.56 of 2009 and it would not amount to a valid tender of rent. 25. 24. It also stated that the respondents are not parties in R.C.No.56 of 2009 and once the petitioner received intimation about change of ownership of the property, he ought not to have deposited rents to the credit of R.C.No.56 of 2009 and it would not amount to a valid tender of rent. 25. It confirmed the finding of subletting by the petitioner, observing that the petitioner was an Engineer by profession and had its office at Mallapur and he had nothing to do with the Notary Office or stamp vending business being run in the RC schedule premises and Sri M.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and his wife Smt. Jyothi Laxmi were in exclusive possession of the RC schedule premises and the petitioner did not have such possession. The present Revision 26. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 27. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, counsel for the respondents. 28. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the respondents purchased the RC schedule property under Ex.P1 registered sale deed dt.17.11.2016 from the previous owners. After purchase of the premises, it is not in dispute that Ex.P2 notice was given by the respondents' vendors informing about the transfer of ownership to the respondents and directing the petitioner to pay rents for the RC schedule property from November, 2016 onwards; and the purchasers/respondents also issued Ex.P5 notice dt.28.03.2017 informing the petitioner about their purchase and asking the petitioner to pay rents to them from March, 2017. 29. From 01.04.2017 to 30.11.2017, the rents to the tune of Rs. 13,600/- were due and payable to the respondents by the petitioner. But these rents were not tendered by the petitioner to the respondents, and according to the petitioner, he had deposited the same in R.C.No.56 of 2009 filed by him against the previous owners of the property even after receipt of Ex.P5 notice from the respondents. The petitioner had never sought from the respondents the Bank account details of the respondents for deposit of rents. 30. The petitioner had never sought from the respondents the Bank account details of the respondents for deposit of rents. 30. Though counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that there may be 'default' but it is not 'willful default' in payment of rents warranting eviction of the petitioner, I am not inclined to agree with the said submission because the petitioner knew that the respondents were not parties in R.C.No.56 of 2009 and would not be in a position to withdraw any amount deposited to the credit of the said R.C. by the petitioner. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in denying access to the rents payable cannot but be termed as 'willful default' warranting his eviction. 31. Therefore, I concur with the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority and hold that there is no error committed by them in directing eviction of the petitioner from the RC schedule premises on the ground of willful default in payment of rents from 01.04.2017 to 30.11.2017. 32. Coming to the aspect of subletting, Counsel for the petitioner contended that it cannot be said that there was parting of exclusive possession in favour of Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and his wife Jyothi Laxmi who were doing notary work and stamp vending business in the RC schedule property. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kala and another Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 1998 6 SCC 573 and Dipak Banerjee Vs. Lilabati Chakraborty, 1987 4 SCC 161 which stated that a person alleged to be a subtenant must be shown to be in exclusive possession of the premises over which the main tenant has no control. 33. In this regard, the evidence of the petitioner as R.W.2 and particularly his cross-examination is relevant. In his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he was a Consultant in two or three companies; that his basic qualification is engineering; that his father had taken the RC schedule premises on tenancy in 1968 for running a Notary Office therein during his life time; but the petitioner had nothing to do with the Notary Office in the said property. He stated that he was an Engineer and his office is at Mallapur and he had no branch in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. He stated that he was an Engineer and his office is at Mallapur and he had no branch in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. He stated that his father died in 2001 and after the death of his father, Sri M. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy continued the Notary Office as he was junior to his father and that the said individual and Smt. Jyothi Laxmi, his wife, were doing stamp vending business therein. He categorically stated that he was not doing business in the RC schedule property. 34. This evidence establishes clearly that the exclusive possession of the RC schedule property was only with Sri M.Laxmi Narsimha Reddy and his wife Jyothi Laxmi who were doing notary work and stamp vending business respectively therein and the petitioner had nothing to do with the notary work and his place of employment as a Consultant was elsewhere and he was therefore not having any possession of the RC schedule property. 35. In this view of the matter, I reject the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the exclusive possession of the property was not with the alleged sub-tenants and was with the petitioner alone. 36. I therefore do not find any merit in the Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 37. However, the petitioner is granted time till 30.06.2020 to hand over vacant physical possession of the RC schedule property to the respondents; the petitioner shall deposit all the arrears of rent to the credit of R.C.No.47 of 2017 of the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and shall also continue to pay the rents till 30.06.2020 on or before 10th of every succeeding month starting from rents of March 2020 payable in April 2020 without fail. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the Court below within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order that he would deposit arrears of rent as well as continue to pay the rents up to 30.06.2020 as directed supra and that he would vacate the RC schedule premises by 30.06.2020. In default of filing of such undertaking, the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted forthwith. 38. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.