Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 543 (TS)

Mohammed Khaja Taiyabullah v. Mohammed Nawaz

2020-07-10

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
ORDER : This Revision is filed under Section 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dt.31.12.2019 in R.C.A.No.105 of 2019 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Appellate authority’) confirming the order dt.06.06.2019 in R.C.No.17 of 2018 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Rent Controller’). Pleadings of the respondent in R.C.No.17 of 2018 2. The respondent filed the R.C. under Section 10(2) of the Act alleging that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the western side portion of the house property bearing Municipal No.6-1-171/9 and 10 forming part of Survey Nos.30/213, 30/214 and 30/215 admeasuring 70 sq. yards situated at Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad having purchased it under a registered sale deed dt.04.05.2018 from Smt.Aziza Arjumand and three others. 3. The respondent contended that the petitioner is the tenant of the RC schedule property from the previous owners before the purchase by the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-; that after purchase of the property by the respondent, though he informed the same to the petitioner, the petitioner never paid rents and there is default in payment of rents from July, 2018 which amounts to willful default. 4. The respondent contended that he had purchased the property for residence purpose and had been requesting the petitioner to vacate the property from the date of purchase so that he and his family can shift into the property as he had no other residential house of his own; and in spite of knowing the bona fide requirement of the respondent, the petitioner did not deliberately vacate the premises. Counter of the petitioner in R.C.No.17 of 2018 5. The petitioner filed counter affidavit stating that he is the tenant of the respondent’s vendors, that he was in possession of the RC schedule property and when the respondent’s vendors tried to dispossess him, he had filed O.S.No.268 of 2018 before the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, which is pending. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law in spite of a status quo order granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.210 of 2018 in O.S.No.268 of 2018. 7. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law in spite of a status quo order granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.210 of 2018 in O.S.No.268 of 2018. 7. The petitioner contended that the transaction of purchase of the property by the respondent from it’s previous owners was never informed to him. He also denied that he failed to pay rents from July, 2018 and contended that the vendors of the respondent refused to receive rents and he had deposited Rs.36,000/- starting from July, 2018 to July, 2019 through a Demand Draft No.036229 drawn on HDFC Bank, RTC X Roads Branch in favour of the respondent. He alleged that though he was ready to purchase the RC schedule property, it’s previous owners had sold it to the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent had two other residential houses in the same locality; that the petitioner’s mother is terminally ill and that was the reason why he was continuing as tenant in the property belonging to the respondent. Order dt.06.06.2019 in R.C.No.17 of 2018 8. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5. 9. It referred to the evidence of P.W.1 that that though no written notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner informing about the purchase of the RC schedule property, the respondent and his vendor had orally informed the petitioner about the purchase of the property by the respondent. It also took notice of the evidence of the petitioner as R.W.1 that in Ex.P5, the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.210 of 2018 in O.S.No.268 of 2018, one of the vendors of the respondent stated that they sold the RC schedule property to the respondent on 04.05.2018 by executing a registered sale deed. 10. It therefore concluded that the oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as the recital in Ex.P5 indicates that the petitioner had knowledge about the purchase of the RC schedule property by the respondent from it’s previous owners by 16.07.2018; that a landlord can transfer his property validly in favour of a third party during the subsistence of lease without attornment of tenancy and without consent of his tenant as held in Shankaramma and others Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed and another, 2006 (6) ALT 23 . 11. The Rent Controller therefore concluded that in spite of having knowledge about purchase of the property by the respondent, the petitioner did not pay the rents from July, 2018, but deposited a lump sum amount of Rs.36,000/- towards 12 months rent by way of demand draft into the account of the respondent on 31.01.2019, which was received under protest by the respondent. It noted the evidence of R.W.1 that in spite of having knowledge of the sale deed executed by the vendors of the respondent in favour of the respondent, the petitioner did not tender monthly rents to the respondent. It therefore concluded that there is willful default in payment of rents by the respondent. 12. Coming to the plea of bona fide requirement, the Rent Controller found that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the respondent had two other residential properties in the very same locality as was contended in the counter affidavit. 13. It however held that the petitioner had a residential house adjacent to the RC schedule property; that the requirement of the respondent for the RC schedule property was bona fide and genuine; and the petitioner was thus entitled to be evicted from the said property. Order dt.31.12.2019 in R.C.A.No.105 of 2019 14. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.105 of 2019 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 15. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 16. The Appellate Authority also relied on Ex.P5, the counter affidavit dt.16.07.2018 filed by one of the vendors of the respondent in I.A.No.210 of 2018 in O.S.No.268 of 2018 to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the purchase of the property by the respondent from his vendors; and in spite of having such knowledge, he did not tender any monthly rents till 31.01.2019; and only on that date he transferred Rs.36,000/- by way of demand draft to the respondent who received it under protest. 17. It held that there is no rule that the owner of the property has to inform his tenant before selling the property to a third party, and that the petitioner intentionally did not tender the monthly rents to the respondent and committed willful default in payment of rents. 18. 17. It held that there is no rule that the owner of the property has to inform his tenant before selling the property to a third party, and that the petitioner intentionally did not tender the monthly rents to the respondent and committed willful default in payment of rents. 18. The plea of bona fide requirement of the respondent was also accepted since the petitioner could not establish his plea that the respondent had two other residential houses in the very same locality. 19. The Appellate Authority also relied upon the fact that the petitioner had a residential house adjacent to the RC schedule property. 20. It rejected the plea of the petitioner that his house is a small one, and he has a joint family property, he cannot accommodate his mother who is unwell in the said house though the said house was admitted by him to be consisting of ground plus three upper floors. The present Revision 21. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. Contentions of the counsel for the petitioner 22. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority erred in directing eviction of the petitioner from the RC schedule property; and that they ought to have seen that after purchase of the property, the respondent did not inform the petitioner in writing about such purchase; that the petitioner had in any event deposited a sum of Rs.36,000/- into the bank account of the respondent on 31.01.2019; and that the petitioner requires the RC schedule property for accommodation of his mother who is terminally ill. Contentions of the counsel for the respondent 23. Sri S. Sridhar, counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and contended that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by them did not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 22 of the Act. Consideration by the Court 24. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent had purchased the RC schedule property from it’s previous owners under Ex.P1 sale deed dt.04.05.2018. 25. There is no dispute that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.268 of 2018 against the vendors of the respondent and he had filed I.A.No.210 of 2018 for grant of relief of temporary injunction in that suit. 25. There is no dispute that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.268 of 2018 against the vendors of the respondent and he had filed I.A.No.210 of 2018 for grant of relief of temporary injunction in that suit. A counter affidavit Ex.P5 was filed therein by one of the vendors of the respondent clearly mentioning that they had sold the suit schedule property (present RC schedule property) to the respondent on 04.05.2018. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that he was not aware of the sale of the RC schedule property to the respondent under Ex.P1 by it’s previous owners. 26. In any event, there is no law requiring the owner of any property to inform his tenant who is in occupation of the property of his intention to sell the same to a third party as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shankaramma and others Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed and another (1 supra). The Division bench held that a landlord is permitted to transfer his property validly in favour of a third party during the subsistence of lease without attornment of tenancy and without consent of the tenant and attornment of tenancy is not necessary under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 27. This legal position is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 28. It may be that the petitioner deposited Rs.36,000/- through a demand draft on 31.01.2019 in the bank account of the respondent, but default had already been committed by the petitioner in not paying rents from July, 2018 onwards. 29. According to the respondent, he had received the said payment under protest. 30. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had waived his right to get the petitioner evicted by receiving the said amount towards rents and that mere deposit of such amount in the account of the respondent does not wipe out the willful default in payment of rents. 31. Admittedly, the petitioner has a residential house adjacent to the RC schedule property consisting of ground plus three floors. Even assuming for the sake of argument that his mother is unwell, the accommodation available with the petitioner is big enough to accommodate her as well along with other members of the joint family of the petitioner. 31. Admittedly, the petitioner has a residential house adjacent to the RC schedule property consisting of ground plus three floors. Even assuming for the sake of argument that his mother is unwell, the accommodation available with the petitioner is big enough to accommodate her as well along with other members of the joint family of the petitioner. He cannot squat on the property belonging to the respondent when the respondent bona fide requires the same for his residence. 32. Though the petitioner contended that the respondent is the owner of two other residential houses in the very same locality, he did not lead any evidence in support of the said plea. Therefore, the said plea is not proved. 33. I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the petitioner had committed willful default in payment of rents and that the respondent bona fide requires the RC schedule property for his own use. 34. These concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be perverse or not based on evidence. They do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. 35. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed ; the petitioner is granted time till 30.09.2020 to vacate the RC schedule property; he shall also deposit arrears of rent, if any, before the Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad in R.C.No.17 of 2018 within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the petitioner shall also pay the rents due till 30th September, 2020 to the respondent every month at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) on or before 10th day of every month starting from July, 2020 without fail; the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he would vacate the RC schedule property by 30.09.2020 and also pay the arrears of rents and the rents as stipulated above within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) towards costs to the respondent. 36. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.