Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 409 (TS)

Guru Basaiah v. A. Ramesh

2022-06-22

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

body2022
ORDER : Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment and decree of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No.267 of 2014 dated 12.11.2015. 2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though the respondent is being represented by Mrs. B.Swarna Latha, advocate, yet the learned counsel failed to submit her contentions. 3. The gamut of the case as could be perceived through a meticulous perusal of the entire material that is available on record is that the revision petitioner filed a Rent Control Case vide R.C.No.447 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the respondent and to hand over the physical possession of the petition schedule property to him. After due enquiry, the Court of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad through order dated 18.10.2014 directed the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession of the said property to the revision petitioner within three months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal. The said appeal i.e., R.A.No.267 of 2014 was dealt with by the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and by allowing the said appeal through judgment dated 12.11.2015, the learned judge has set aside the order of eviction that was passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court. 4. The revision petitioner (hereinafter referred as “the owner” for the sake of convenience of discussion) sought for eviction of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the tenant” for the sake of convenience of discussion) on two grounds, the first one being wilful default in payment of monthly rents and the second is for bona fide requirement. The owner sought for eviction of the tenant basing on Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The version of the owner is that he had let out a portion in the ground floor of house bearing No.LIG-1, 41, located at Udayanagar, B.K.Guda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, which consists of three rooms and a toilet to the tenant in the year 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The same is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month and the tenancy is oral. The same is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month and the tenancy is oral. The tenant was irregular in payment of monthly rents. After lapse of seven years, in the month of March, 2008, he increased the rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. From the month of April, 2008, the tenant was not paying the monthly rents in spite of several requests and demands. The tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.2129 of 2009 which stood pending the file of the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction order preventing him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The tenant fell due a sum of Rs.99,000/- towards arrears of rents for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2010. Further, he bona fidely require the said premises for his personal use and occupation. He was a railway employee and retired from service on 31.12.2004, and after retirement, he requested the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenant promised to vacate the same within short period, but he did not do so. He is staying in a portion of the house that belongs to his brother by paying rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. 5. Thus, the version of the owner is that the tenant is liable to be evicted both on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and for bona fide requirement for his personal use and occupation. 6. The tenant resisted the claim of the owner by denying all the material allegations. The version of the tenant is that he was never irregular in payment of rents and the owner used to reside in the adjacent portion of the petition schedule property and he used to collect the rent every month. The owner had demanded him to vacate the petition schedule property with an ulterior motive of letting out the same on higher rent and ultimately, on 22.4.2009, he along with his henchmen tried to vacate him forcibly and therefore, he filed a suit and obtained interim injunction order. The owner had demanded him to vacate the petition schedule property with an ulterior motive of letting out the same on higher rent and ultimately, on 22.4.2009, he along with his henchmen tried to vacate him forcibly and therefore, he filed a suit and obtained interim injunction order. He sent Rs.2,000/- to the owner on 06.5.2009 towards rent for the month of April, 2009 and again on 06.6.2009 he remitted Rs.4,000/- by money order being the rents for the months of April and May, 2009, but on both the occasions, the owner refused to receive the same and hence, he filed an interlocutory application in the suit filed by him for depositing the rents and the said application was allowed and therefore, he is depositing the rent every month very promptly. 7. Coming to the aspect of bona fide requirement, the tenant contended that the owner is residing in the portion adjacent to the petition schedule property and hence, the plea of bona fide requirement is false. Further, the owner has got a five storied building at Nampally besides the petition schedule property and therefore, the pleas taken by the owner for getting him vacated from the house in question are false and thus, the owner is not entitled for any relief. 8. Subjecting the evidence of P.W-1, R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 to scrutiny, the learned judge of the Rent Control Court came to a conclusion that there is justification in the contentions raised by the owner and therefore, directed the tenant to vacate the petition schedule property. However, as earlier put forth, the observations made by the said Court were negatived in appeal by the appellate Court. 9. Thus, in the light of the factual scenario as projected above and as the findings of the Rent Control Court and the appellate Court are quite contrary to each other, the points that arise for consideration before this Court are: (1) Whether the revision petitioner/owner had established the aspect of wilful default in payment of rents by the respondent/tenant and the plea of bona fide requirement before the Rent Control Court and if so, whether the respondent/tenant is liable to be evicted basing on the said grounds. (2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the appellate Court i.e., the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A.No.267 of 2014 dated 12.11.2015 either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the revision petitioner/owner, which in turn, requires interference of this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. 10. Point No.1:- The fact that the revision petitioner is the owner and the respondent continues to be the tenant of the petition schedule property is not in dispute. The version of the owner is that the petition schedule property was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- in the year 1999 and subsequently, i.e., after lapse of seven years, in the month of March, 2008, he enhanced the said rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. The tenant denied the said version. The respondent/tenant who got examined himself as R.W-1, during the course of cross-examination stated that initially, he used to pay rent of Rs.1,000/-per month and since April, 2001 he is paying rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. However, such a plea was not taken in the counter filed by him. Furthermore, such an averment is not found even in the chief affidavit filed by him in lieu of his chief-examination. Thus, for the first time, during the course of cross-examination, the tenant projected such a version and thereafter, he produced the evidence of R.W-2 in support of the said version. As, such a contention or a plea was not taken in the pleadings i.e., in the counter filed by him, the said plea cannot be entertained. In the same manner, though the version of the owner is that the rent was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month in March, 2008, there is no proof to that effect. Therefore, the said version also needs no consideration. By the evidence that is brought on record, it is clear that the rent which is payable for the house in question is Rs.2,000/- per month. Now, it has to be seen whether the tenant was paying the said rent regularly. 11. The contention of the owner is that the tenant failed to pay the monthly rents from the month of April, 2008 onwards. No where, the tenant contended that he was paying the rent from April, 2008. Now, it has to be seen whether the tenant was paying the said rent regularly. 11. The contention of the owner is that the tenant failed to pay the monthly rents from the month of April, 2008 onwards. No where, the tenant contended that he was paying the rent from April, 2008. The version of the tenant is that he had sent Rs.2,000/- to the owner on 06.5.2009 towards rent for the month of April, 2009 and again, he remitted Rs.4,000/- by money order on 06.6.2009 being the rents for the months of April and May, 2009, but on both the occasions, the owner refused to receive the same. When the specific case of the owner is that the tenant failed to pay the rents from the month of April, 2008, can the version of the tenant that he had sent Rs.2,000/- to the owner on 06.5.2009 towards rent for the month of April, 2009 and again, he sent a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 06.6.2009 towards rents for the months of April and May, 2009 be taken into consideration to hold that the tenant has not committed any act of wilful default. There is a gap of one year from April, 2008 to April, 2009. What prevented the tenant to remit the monthly rents in the manner as laid down under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is not stated anywhere. Admittedly, a procedure is prescribed as to how the tenant has to remit the rent in case the owner refuses to receive the same. Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 read with Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, gives the details of the procedure to be followed by the tenant for remitting the rent when such a situation arises. Admittedly, such a procedure is not followed by the tenant in the case on hand. Thus, tendering the rent and sending the same through money orders after a lapse of one year and thereafter, depositing the rent in the suit that was filed by the tenant against the owner cannot come to the aid of the tenant to hold that he has not committed any act of wilful default. These aspects though considered to some extent by the Rent Control Court, were not at all taken into consideration by the appellate Court. These aspects though considered to some extent by the Rent Control Court, were not at all taken into consideration by the appellate Court. Considering all the evidence that is brought on record by both parties to the proceedings, it can undoubtedly be concluded that the tenant has committed an act of wilful default in payment of rents. 12. Coming to the aspect of bona fide requirement, the version of the owner is that he is a railway employee and retired from service on 31.12.2004 and after retirement, he requested the tenant to vacate the premises for his personal occupation and the tenant promised to vacate the same within short period, but he failed to do so. The plea taken by the tenant is that the owner is residing in the portion adjacent to the petition schedule property and therefore, the plea of the owner that the portion which is under his occupation is required for his personal use and occupation of his family members is false and furthermore, the owner has got a five storied building at Nampally. The owner in his pleadings and also before the Rent Control Court when he got examined himself as P.W-1 stated that he is residing in a portion which belongs to his brother on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. No doubt, during the course of cross-examination, the owner (P.W-1) admitted that the adjacent portion which is shown in Ex.P-1 is in his occupation since beginning. The said fact itself does not mean that the owner does not require the portion of house that was let out to the tenant. The fact that the owner retired from his service on 31.12.2004 is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the tenant was in possession of the house in question since 1999. Therefore, the version of the owner that post-retirement, he demanded the tenant to vacate the premises for his personal occupation cannot be doubted. Furthermore, there is no material available on record to show that the owner has got a better place for occupation, as contended by the tenant. The tenant who had taken such a specific plea was under an obligation to establish the said fact before the Rent Control Court. 13. Furthermore, there is no material available on record to show that the owner has got a better place for occupation, as contended by the tenant. The tenant who had taken such a specific plea was under an obligation to establish the said fact before the Rent Control Court. 13. Making a submission that in case, the owner had refused to receive the rent, the tenant was under obligation to send the same through money order immediately and he was also under obligation to follow Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case between Mohd. Quasim Vs. P.Vijay Prakash, 2020(4) ALT 377 (S.B.), wherein the Court at para 40 of the order observed as follows:- “If the respondents had refused to receive the rents allegedly sent through Money Orders by the petitioner, he ought t have filed the refused Money Orders in his evidence. The petitioner also had an option to follow the procedure set out in Section 8 of the Act, and obtained permission of the Rent Controller for deposit of rents into the Court, but the petitioner has not availed of the same.” 14. Law is well settled that in the absence of any evidence regarding payment of rents or that the procedure as laid down under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 read with Rule 5 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 is followed, it has to be construed that the tenant has committed an act of wilful default in payment of rent. Therefore, it has to be held that the owner has established both the grounds, i.e., the act of wilful default in payment of rent by the tenant and the aspect of bona fide requirement, before the Rent Control Court. 15. Point No.2:- When the judgment of the appellate Court is gone through, this Court finds that the appellate Court failed to apply the established principles of law to the facts on hand and thereby, arrived at an unjust conclusion. 15. Point No.2:- When the judgment of the appellate Court is gone through, this Court finds that the appellate Court failed to apply the established principles of law to the facts on hand and thereby, arrived at an unjust conclusion. When the specific case of the owner is that the tenant has not paid the rents since April, 2008, deposit of rent by the tenant in the month of May, 2009 and thereafter, again in the month of June, 2009 by remitting the amounts through money order does not amount to payment of rent within prescribed period. The period within which the monthly rent is payable and the procedure to be followed in case, the owner refuses to receive the rent is clearly laid down in the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Such a procedure, admittedly, is not followed by the tenant in the present case. These factors and aspects were not discussed or considered by the appellate Court. The appellate Court thereby arrived at an unjust conclusion. Therefore, this Court holds that the judgment of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 16. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No.267 of 2014 dated 12.11.2015 is set aside. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the Court of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.447 of 2010 dated 18.10.2014 is confirmed. The respondent/ tenant is directed to vacate the petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession of the same to the revision petitioner/owner within three months from the date of this order. No costs. 17. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.