Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 173 (TS)

Jamia Nizamia, Hyderabad v. M. A. Sattar Khalidi

2024-03-11

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-02-2016 in RA.No.84 of 2014 and RA.No.85 of 2014 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, where under, the appeals preferred by the respondent/tenant against the judgment in RC.No.21 of 2004 and RC.No.435 of 2008 were allowed, thereby, their two Rent Control Cases were dismissed, the petitioner/landlord in the above referred Rent Control cases and the respondent in both the appeals has filed these two Civil Revision Petitions under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, which is now ‘The Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960) herein after will be referred as ‘Act 15 of 1960’, with a prayer to set aside the above referred judgments in both the appeals and direct the respondent/appellant to vacate and hand over the petition schedule property to the petitioner. Since the appeals were filed on similar grounds and present Civil Revision Petitions were also filed on similar grounds and as the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent have advanced common arguments in both the revision petitions, common judgment would suffice for the disposal of these two revision petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision petition will be referred to as landlord and tenant. The present Revision Petitions were filed by the landlord. 2. Before adverting to the grounds on which the landlord sought to question the impugned judgment in RA.No.84 of 2014 and RA.No.85 of 2014, it is just necessary to give a brief note of the original Rent Control cases that were filed by the landlord. 3. As per the contentions raised by the landlord and even as per the admitted case of tenant, property bearing No. 5-9-321/3 at Gun Foundry, Hyderabad belongs to the landlord/petitioner and the same was let out to the respondent/tenant on lease for a period of 29 years. While filing RC.No.21 of 2004, the landlord has claimed that the term of lease was expired and the tenant continued to stay in the building. While filing RC.No.21 of 2004, the landlord has claimed that the term of lease was expired and the tenant continued to stay in the building. It appears that the tenant has filed one Rent Control case vide RC.No.151 of 2002 seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Bank Account or in the Court on the ground that the landlord refused to receive the rent and though he tried to send the rent amount by way of Money Order, the same as rejected and there was no proper response from the landlord to his request, where under, he sought the details of his Bank Account, so that he can deposit the rent. 4. The landlord while contesting the said RC.No.151 of 2002 filed the above referred RC.No.21 of 2004 under Section 10 (2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and Section 12 of the Act, 1960 on the ground that there was willfull default in depositing the rent by the tenant and he has caused damage to the building by raising additional structures, though the old building is not in a position to take additional load. The landlord has also claimed that they want to raise new structures by dismantling the old building and they have already obtained necessary permission from Municipal Authorities and they made a proposal to the tenant that they would provide accommodation in the new building. The landlord has claimed that in view of the failure of tenant in depositing the rent before the Court and as the property is required for construction of a new building and also on the ground of causing damage, sought for eviction. 5. The tenant has resisted the said case, filed counter disputing the material averments made by the landlord. 6. The second Rent Control case was filed by the landlord under Section 10 (2)(V) of the Act 15 of 1960 on the ground that the tenant had already secured an alternative accommodation. As per the averments made in the second case vide RC.No.435 of 2008, the landlord has claimed that they could found from the Court records that one M/s.Vasavi Seva Kendram had filed one Rent Control case vide RC.No.499 of 2007 against the respondent/tenant herein and on verification, the landlord could know that the tenant has already secured alternate accommodation, thereby, sought for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller having completed enquiry in both the cases, disposed them and accepted the contentions raised by the landlord, allowed the rent control cases and directed the tenant to vacate the premises. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment in both the Rent Control Cases, the tenant has filed two appeals vide RA.No. 84 of 2014 and RA.No.85 of 2014. The learned Additional Chief Judge having heard both parties and on re- appreciation of the pleadings, evidence etc., allowed both the appeals and dismissed the Rent Control cases vide RC.No.21 of 2004 and RC.No.485 of 2008. The present Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner on the following grounds: The finding of the first appellate Court that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant for a period from September 2001 to December 2003 is wrong, as the plea of willful default, raised by the landlord in RC.No.21 of 2004 was not specifically denied by the tenant in his counter and the denial, if any, found in the counter is an evasive denial. Therefore, it cannot be considered as denial in the eye of law. The first appellate Court failed to appreciate the contention of the landlord that there was willful default in payment of rent by the tenant. The landlord/petitioner has claimed that as per Section 8 (5) of the Act “the tenant has to send money order to the landlord but the tenant without filing any receipt evidencing the payment by way of an impugned order cannot avoid the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also claimed that as per the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, the tenant has to deposit the rents as required under Rules 5(1), 5(4) and Rule 16 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. The petitioner has claimed that the first appellate Court failed to know that the tenant while giving evidence in RC.No.21 of 2004 deposed as if, he has deposited the rent on 30-09-2011. Those deposits were made in pursuance of the orders in RA.No.182 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed that there was no such deposit of rents but the first appellate Court failed to appreciate this fact and wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the tenant. 8. Heard both parties. 9. Those deposits were made in pursuance of the orders in RA.No.182 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed that there was no such deposit of rents but the first appellate Court failed to appreciate this fact and wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the tenant. 8. Heard both parties. 9. Though these two appeals have been filed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant focused his argument mainly on the ground that the landlord is a Charitable Trust, as such, they are exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1960. Therefore, the petition filed by the landlord vide RC.No.21 of 2004 and RC.No.485 of 2008 are not maintainable before the Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller could have returned the petitions. Apart from the said argument, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant has claimed that the landlord was unable to prove his case before the trial Court. The learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate his contentions in a proper way but the learned Additional Chief Judge before whom the appeals were preferred, had rightly appreciated the contentions and rightly allowed the appeals, thereby, there are no grounds to set aside the judgment. 10. However, the learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that when the tenant raised the plea about the non-maintainability of the Rent Control cases in view of the exemption to a Charitable Institution, the trial Court has appreciated the fact and held that the tenant cannot raise such a ground and the landlord is not a Charitable Institution, therefore, there is no such exemption and petition filed before the Rent Controller is maintainable. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also argued that when the petitioner wanted to raise such a contention, he could not have filed earlier petition before the Rent Controller vide RC.No.151 of 2002 seeking permission to deposit the rent. In fact, while answering this particular query, the learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that at the time of filing RC.No.151 of 2002, the tenant was not aware of the nature of the business of the landlord. The tenant who came to know that the landlord availed exemption from payment of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institute, could realize that the land lord cannot file Rent Control case on behalf of a charitable Institute. The tenant who came to know that the landlord availed exemption from payment of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institute, could realize that the land lord cannot file Rent Control case on behalf of a charitable Institute. But this fact was not within his knowledge when he filed the earlier RCC. Therefore, the evidence placed before the Court including the tax returns would indicate that the landlord was able to obtain tax exemption on that particular ground. Therefore, the Government orders referred and relied on by the tenant are applicable to the case of landlord and the Rent Control cases are not maintainable. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the tenant, the said RC.No.151 of 2002 was filed much earlier to the Rent Control cases filed by the landlord vide RC.No.21 of 2004 and RC.No.485 of 2008. By the time he filed RC.No.151 of 2002, the tenant might not have got knowledge about the exemption obtained by the landlord for payment of Income Tax. Therefore, simply because he has filed RC.No.151 of 2002, the landlord cannot take the same as an advantage in order to question the maintainability of Rent Control cases, the learned counsel for the tenant placed reliance on Section 80(G) of INCOME TAX ACT . According to Section 80(G) of the Act which reads as follows: ‘Section 80G is a provision under the INCOME TAX ACT of India that allows taxpayers to claim deductions for donations made to specified charitable institutions and funds. The purpose of this section is to encourage individuals and organizations to contribute towards charitable causes while also providing them with tax benefits. The government provides this incentive to encourage charitable donations and support the activities of charitable organizations, which can benefit society as a whole. By providing tax benefits to donors, the government hopes to encourage more people to donate to charitable causes. Taxpayers need to provide the details of their donations and the eligible amount for deduction under Section 80G while filing their income tax returns’. 12. It is clear that Section 80(G) of INCOME TAX ACT allows the tax deduction or contribution to certain relief funds and charitable institutions. The tenant has claimed that as per the undisputed case of landlord, it is a charitable institution and they have obtained exemption from payment of the income tax. 13. 12. It is clear that Section 80(G) of INCOME TAX ACT allows the tax deduction or contribution to certain relief funds and charitable institutions. The tenant has claimed that as per the undisputed case of landlord, it is a charitable institution and they have obtained exemption from payment of the income tax. 13. As per the Government order vide GOMS.No.575 dated 12-05-1960 (Ex.R9) all the buildings, go downs belonging to Muslim religion and Charitable Institutions in the State were exempted from the operation of the Provisions of Act, 15 of 1960. As per the record, it is quite clear that the petitioner herein obtained exemption under Section 80 G of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institution. It is not the case of tenant that the petitioner is a Wakf as observed by the first appellate Court. When the landlord obtained exemption of payment of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institution, they cannot initiate proceedings under the Rent Control Act i.e., Act 15 of 1960 as such, the Rent Controller ought not to have entertained the cases filed by the landlord. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petitions questioning the order of Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad are liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.