Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 271 (TS)

Mohd Sarwar Hussain Siddiqui v. Baqir Ali Khan

2021-08-17

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2021
JUDGMENT : A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J. 1. This Second Appeal, by the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2020, passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S. No. 290 of 2015, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2015 rendered by the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 1271 of 2012 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule mulgi and recovery of arrears of rent contending that the suit schedule mugli belongs to the grand father of plaintiff No. 1 and it fell to their in the family partition that took place on 24.09.2011. The suit schedule mulgi was given on rent to the defendant earlier to the partition. Plaintiff No. 1 and his father’s brother, Mir Inayath Ali Khan, informed about the said partition to the defendant on 24.09.2011 itself. Mir Inayath Ali Khan instructed the defendant to pay the existing monthly rent of Rs. 3,800/- to the plaintiffs. The defendant paid the rent to plaintiff No. 1 for the month of September, 2011, on 10.10.2011. Subsequently, the defendant defaulted in payment of the monthly rents. Hence, plaintiff No. 1 got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.04.2012 demanding him to vacate the suit schedule mulgi on the ground of bona fide requirement. The defendant issued a reply to the said notice claiming that the rent for the suit schedule mulgi is Rs. 2,900/- per month; that he is paying the rents regularly to Mir Inayath Ali Khan and that he sent the rents through Money Order to Mir Inayath Ali Khan, but the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan refused to receive the same. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 4. The defendant filed a written statement contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs are not the landlords and that there is no jural relationship in between him and the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 4. The defendant filed a written statement contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs are not the landlords and that there is no jural relationship in between him and the plaintiffs. That he was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit schedule mulgi on the basis of an oral agreement of tenancy by Mir Inayath Ali Khan on 23.06.1990 for the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The rent was gradually enhanced and by the time of filing of the suit, the rent was Rs. 2,900/- per month. He deposited a total advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with Mir Inayath Ali Khan and the said amount was refundable. He paid the rents to the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan till September, 2011 and obtained receipts from him. He remitted the rents from October, 2011 to February, 2012, through Money Orders, but the same was refused by Mir Inayath Ali Khan. Therefore, he filed R.C. No. 65 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and the said R.C. was allowed on 04.05.2012. Pursuant to the said order, the defendant is depositing the rents regularly before the Rent Controller. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues for trial. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.83 were marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule mulgi, and to pay the arrears of rent with effect from October, 2011 to May, 2012 @ Rs. 3,800/- per month. The plaintiffs were directed to refund the cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant as and when they take possession of the suit schedule mulgi. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence in detail, dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal by the defendant. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence in detail, dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal by the defendant. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has argued that the appellant-defendant filed R.C. No. 65 of 2012 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and the Principal Rent Controller, after going through the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the monthly rent payable by the appellant-defendant is Rs. 2,900/- only, and accordingly, allowed the R.C. on 04.05.2012 directing the appellant-defendant to deposit the rents from October, 2011 to May, 2012 @ Rs. 2,900/- per month within one month from the date of the said order and further directed him to deposit the rent from June, 2012 onwards @ Rs. 2,900/- per month. That once the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the monthly rent is only Rs. 2,900/- the jurisdiction of the trial Court is automatically barred, and the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court are null and void and non est in the eye of law. The learned counsel has further argued that both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court erred in not taking into consideration the judgment dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 65 of 2012. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has argued that the respondents-plaintiffs are going around the Courts since nine years, and that they are not parties to R.C. No. 65 of 2012, and therefore, the order passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in the said R.C. is not binding on them. 10. A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2012, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 65 of 2012 discloses that the respondents/plaintiffs are not parties to the said R.C. and the said R.C. was filed against Mir Inayath Ali Khan. The order dated 04.05.2012 further discloses that the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan was set ex-parte. 10. A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2012, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 65 of 2012 discloses that the respondents/plaintiffs are not parties to the said R.C. and the said R.C. was filed against Mir Inayath Ali Khan. The order dated 04.05.2012 further discloses that the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan was set ex-parte. It is not understandable as to why the appellant-defendant did not bother to implead the respondents-plaintiffs in the said R.C. Moreover, the order dated 04.05.2012, passed in the said R.C. on the face of it, appears to be a collusive one, as the contesting party remained ex-parte. The undisputed fact remains that the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the same has not been denied by Mir Inayath Ali Khan and there is no iota of evidence that the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan continued to receive the rents after the family settlement. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Hence, the Second Appeal fails. 13. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.