Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 770 (TS)

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust v. Asha Devi

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.115 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.417 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, admeasuring 12 x 25 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 her Textile business in February, 1968 and on 22.04.2002, the respondent executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and agreed to pay rent at Rs.908/- 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 she 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 she has changed her business from textile to real estate; that she 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-135 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.417 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.115 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.417 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 has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record and rejected the well considered judgment passed by the Primary Tribunal holding that the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises; that the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the admissions of witnesses of R.W.1 as to the ground of ceased to occupy the premises and that the appellate Court over turned the judgment of the Rent Controller without giving any cogent reasons which do not satisfy the legal requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner has filed Exs.P1 to P6 and more particularly Ex.P6 is the electricity consumption bill in respect of the scheduled premises, which shows that the reading unit is zero and the Department demanded minimum bill. He further submits that the letter under Ex.R78 addressed by the respondent clearly shows that to overcome with the documentary evidence, the respondent gave the alleged representation to the Electricity Department and, therefore, the contention of the respondent that the electricity meter was struck cannot be accepted. 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 Exs.X1 to X5 have not been proved in evidence as the respondent has not entered into the witness box. He further submits that the respondent/tenant obtained the petition scheduled property for doing textile business, but she has not occupied the same and kept closed the premises under lock and key for the last three years and as such she 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. 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. He further submits that the appellate Court has failed to consider that the respondent has caused damage to the scheduled property and that the appellate Court has not given any finding in this regard. 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 she 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. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner since 1968 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 she is doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in support of her contention she got marked Exs.R-61 to R-72, R-75 to R-135 and Exs.X-1 to X-5. It is the contention of the respondent that she is doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in support of her contention she got marked Exs.R-61 to R-72, R-75 to R-135 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 her name and particularly it says that the respondent is at liberty to carry on different businesses. Exs.P2 and Ex.R-60 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. Therefore, the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent/tenant clearly go to show that she 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. Further, the contention of the respondent is that the electricity meter pertaining to the shop was not functioning and as such they have made a complaint to the concerned department vide letter Ex.78 and that the electricity department responded to their complaint under Ex.79 stating that the electricity meter has been changed on 27.09.2006 as it got strucked. Thus, Exs.78 and 79 go to show that the consumption shown under Ex.P6 bills i.e., showing minimum amount of bill is not because of the respondent not using the petition scheduled premises, but because of the defect in the electric meter put up in the said premises. Thus, Exs.78 and 79 go to show that the consumption shown under Ex.P6 bills i.e., showing minimum amount of bill is not because of the respondent not using the petition scheduled premises, but because of the defect in the electric meter put up in the said premises. Therefore, the learned appellate Judge found on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record that the respondent is carrying on different transactions pertaining to Real Estate business in the scheduled property. Merely because the said documents do not mention the name and style of the business under which the respondent was originally running her cloth business under the name and style 'Roshan', it cannot be said that no business was being run in the petition scheduled premises by the respondent, particularly when the lease agreement which was marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.R-60 do not restrict the respondent to carry on business in the personal capacity and that she has to carry on the said business only in the name and style of 'Roshan'. Further, the 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.115 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.