Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 769 (TS)

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust v. Satish Kumar

2020-11-12

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge, allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent/tenant by setting aside the order of the learned III-Additional Rent Controller-cum-15th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, passed in R.C.No.416 of 2007 dated 27.03.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 10 (2) (v) and (iii) of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent herein from the petition scheduled premises stating that the petitioner is a Trust constituted for promotion of social and educational development of Rajasthani Samaj in particular and the public in general under the Trust Deed, dated 18.10.1965 and that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Mulgi (shop) bearing M.C.H.No.4-5-214/7/A, admeasuring 12 x 8 square feet in the building of Rajasthani Bhavan situated at Women's College road leading from Kothi to Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad; that the respondent obtained the said shop on rent for his Textile business in December, 1995 and on 22.04.2002, the respondent executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and agreed to pay rent at Rs.1634/- per month including amenity charges on or before 10th of each English Calendar month and that the respondent also agreed to pay all the rates, taxes and charges of every description including property tax, electricity consumption charges etc. It was also stated that the respondent has not occupied the said shop and it was always kept closed under lock and key for the last three years and that he was not doing any business therein, even the name board was also removed, as such the respondent ceased to occupy the scheduled shop for continuous period of more than three years without reasonable cause. It was further stated that there was no cleaning and maintenance of the shop, so that the rats have entered therein and damaged the shop. 3. It was further stated that there was no cleaning and maintenance of the shop, so that the rats have entered therein and damaged the shop. 3. The respondent/tenant filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the respondent has never closed the business, but he has changed his business from textile to real estate; that he was using the said premises for the purpose of real estate office and the office used to be opened daily two or three hours in the afternoon; that the Manager of the petitioner-trust used to come to the shop every month and collected the rent and that the respondent has never committed any default in payment of rent. It was also contended that the tenancy of the scheduled property was covered under a registered lease deed and the same is a valid contract and stipulated period of tenancy is for 15 years and the lease is still subsisting and the same is not cancelled by either party and further there is no violation of any terms by the respondent and as such the petitioner has been estopped from filing the eviction petition. 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked on behalf of the petitioner/landlord and R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-87 were marked on behalf of the respondent/tenant. Exs.X-1 to X-5 were also marked. 5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the said R.C.No.416 of 2007 and directed the respondent/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the scheduled property to the petitioner/landlord within two months from the date of order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to evict the respondent through due process of law. Challenging the same, the respondent/tenant filed R.A.No.114 of 2012. Considering the rival submissions, the appellate Court allowed the said appeal by setting aside the findings of the trial Court in R.C.No.416 of 2007 that "the respondent/tenant was not running business in the scheduled property and hence requires to be evicted". Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord. 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord. 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/landlord would submit that the appellate Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C., has not given any independent finding except making a sweeping observation contrary to the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner, admissions made by R.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses on the ground of ceased to occupy the premises. He further submits that the evidence of R.W.2 clearly demonstrates that the respondent/tenant has not been carrying on any business of Real Estate and that in Exs.X1 to X5, there is no mention that the income was derived from the Real Estate business. He further submits that the respondent/tenant obtained the petition scheduled property for doing textile business, but he has not occupied the same and kept closed the premises under lock and key for the last three years and as such he is liable to be evicted under Section 10 (2) (v) of the Rent Control Act. He further submits that though the learned trial Judge has rightly given a finding that the respondent/tenant was not carrying on business in the scheduled property, the appellate Court without considering the same set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: 1. Sree Datta Agencies rep. by its Proprietor v. Dinesh Kumar Kucheria, (2008) LawSuit(AP) 244 2. Urmila Devi (died) per L.Rs. v. Subhash Kumar, (2010) LawSuit(AP) 374 3. Leela Enterprises rep. By its Proprietor K.Surender v. Kamar Sultana @ Kamer Hasan, (2017) LawSuit(Hyd) 282 4. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/tenant would submit that there was no evidence on record to show when the respondent has closed the business and that he has not doing any business in the scheduled premises. He further submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi to file eviction petition during the subsistence of the tenancy and that the respondent has paid the monthly rents regularly without any default. 9. He further submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi to file eviction petition during the subsistence of the tenancy and that the respondent has paid the monthly rents regularly without any default. 9. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner since 1995 and in the year 2002 the lease agreement was renewed and reduced into writing for a period of 15 years. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondent had kept the scheduled property under lock and key without conducting any business, thereby the scheduled property was getting damaged as the same was not maintained properly. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record gave a finding that none of the documents show that the respondent was doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that the respondent ceased to occupy the scheduled property for more than three years as alleged by the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he is doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in support of his contention he got marked Exs.R-60 to R-69, R-81 to R-87 and Exs.X-1 to X-5. A perusal of the above documents would show that the respondent has conducted certain activities in the scheduled property. Further, the terms of the lease agreement do not restrict the respondent from carrying on his business in the scheduled property in his name and particularly it says that the respondent is at liberty to carry on different businesses. Exs.P2 and Ex.R-59 certified copies of lease deeds further mention that the respondent is at liberty to run Book and Stationery, Computers and Computer Education, Medical and General Stores, Electronics, Real Estate and Handicraft, Ice Cream Parlour and Readymade Garments business in the scheduled property. Thus, the respondent had carried on Real Estate business in the name and style of "Roshan". Moreover, the petitioner had never complained that the respondent was not paying the rents regularly and also did not complain about the misbehaviour or misconduct or indulging in any illegal activities in the scheduled property. Thus, the respondent had carried on Real Estate business in the name and style of "Roshan". Moreover, the petitioner had never complained that the respondent was not paying the rents regularly and also did not complain about the misbehaviour or misconduct or indulging in any illegal activities in the scheduled property. Therefore, the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent/ tenant clearly go to show that he is carrying on Real Estate business in the scheduled property, as such it cannot be said that the respondent has kept the premises under lock and key and not maintaining the same properly thereby scheduled property is being damaged. Further, Exs.R1 to R58 rent receipts would clearly show that the respondent has paid the monthly rents regularly to the petitioner without committing any default. However, no prudent person can pay the rents without conducting any business in the scheduled property. Therefore, the learned appellate Judge found on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record that the respondent is carrying on business in the scheduled property. Further, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the learned appellate Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the learned Judge is absolutely right in finding that certain activities pertaining to Real Estate business have been conducted by the respondent in the scheduled premises and therefore, I do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.