Revision petition against appellate judgment confirming eviction order dismissed. Court upheld jurisdiction of Rent Controller based on respondent's admission regarding building age and dismissed appeal by tenant.
Tenant permitted to vacate premises by 30.12.2011 on condition of paying arrears of rent and electricity dues by 30.09.2011.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3296 of 2010
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2010 in R.A.No.83 of 2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.No.150 of 2006, ordering eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises.
The petitioner herein is the tenant and the 1st respondent is the landlady. Since died other respondents came on record as the legal heirs of the 1st respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the petition before the Rent Controller. The original petitioner-landlady filed a petition, R.C.No.150 of 2006, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of willful default, bona fide requirement and acts of wastage under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii)(b), 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(i) and 10-C(a) (c) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The petitioner’s case in brief is as follows:
The petitioner is the absolute owner of the Mulgi situated at D.No.16-10-165/C, old Malakpet, Hyderabad. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the petition schedule premises. The tenancy was renewed every year in the month of January. Accordingly, in the year 2005, the tenancy was renewed on a monthly rent of Rs.1150/-, excluding electricity and water charges, till the end of 30.11.2005. Subsequently, the lease was not renewed. The respondent has tampered with the electric meter seal and pilferaged electrical energy. The Electricity Department booked a case against the respondent and
also imposed penalty. The petitioner averred that as her family is totally dependant on the rental income, she intends to expand her business, and, for that purpose, the Mulgi in possession of the respondent, which is adjacent to her shop, is required by her. It is also alleged that the respondent is holding a welding shop and causing a lot of disturbance to the petitioner. It is also further alleged that in spite of demanding, the respondent did not oblige to hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises and, further, he failed to pay the fine of Rs.18,324/- imposed by the Central Power Distribution Company charged towards pilferage of energy and that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent from June, 2005 till date. Thus the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent. It is also averred that the Mulgi was constructed more than 15 years ago, and therefore, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to try the case.
The respondent filed a counter, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. However, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not denied. The respondent’s specific case is that he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, and the rent was enhanced from time to time and at present he is paying a monthly rent of Rs.1150/-. It is also his case that he filed a Writ Petition No.26045 of 2003 when the Electricity Department alleged pilferage of electricity, and as per the orders of the High Court of A.P., he had deposited half of the demanded amount of Rs.26,239/- and that the said writ petition is still pending. It is his further case that petitioner has not disclosed the nature of business she intends to start, and that the petitioner has leased-out 5 shops, out of which, one is in his possession and, after filing of this petition, the petitioner had let out second shop to M/s R.K.Oxygen and Allied Products and, the third shop is let out to one Mr.Shah Ali. The petitioner had also filed a similar petition in R.C.No.149
of 2006 against Mr.Shah Ali, who is running a tailoring shop and the same is pending before the Rent Control Court. It is also his case that the fourth shop is let out to Jyothi Hair Saloon and the fifth shop is let out to commercial shops and that petitioner had also let out three residential portions and is getting rents of around Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondent admitted that the suit schedule property was constructed about 15 years back.
There is no need to refer to the other pleadings of the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, the original petitioner-landlady herself was examined as PW.1 and her son was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.3 to R.9 were marked.
The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the respondent. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in R.A.No.83 of 2007. The appellate authority, on considering the rival contentions, allowed the appeal by judgment dated 13.10.2008 by setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller holding that the building was constructed within 15 years, and further held that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rents and committed acts of waste by pilferaging electricity. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority, the petitioner-landlady preferred a revision by C.R.P.No.771 of 2009, and this Court remanded the matter back to the appellate Court to reconsider the issue as to whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition.
The petitioner adduced additional evidence and filed Exs.R.10 to R.12 and PW.2 was recalled and further examined. It appears that PW.1 since died, could not be recalled. The appellate authority, on considering the evidence of the respondent who was examined as RW.1 and basing on his admission that he obtained the petition schedule premises about
12 years ago on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, and that the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners show that the building was constructed about more than 15 years back, dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.83 of 2007 by judgment dated 30.06.2010. Challenging the said judgment, the present revision is filed by the respondent-tenant.
Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the original land-lady in her evidence admitted that the building was constructed about 7 years back and PW.2-her son also admitted that the building was constructed about 7 years back and that the documents filed by the petitioner are pertaining to the old building and the landlords have demolished the old building and constructed a new building, and that the appellate authority has not taken into account the admissions made by PWs.1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that the building was constructed more than 15 years ago, prior to filing of the petition.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent herein submitted that the tenant who was examined before the Court as R.W.1, who admitted that he was inducted as a tenant about 12 years back. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the Rent Control Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition?
If at all the building had been constructed within 15 years prior to filing of the petition in R.C.No.150 of 2006, the Rent Controller will not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is a settled legal principle that in a petition, the pleadings of parties and also the entire evidence has to be taken into consideration. The parties must be careful while making their averments either in the petition or in the counter. Though it is a fact that PWs.1 and 2 seem to have deposed that the building was constructed about 7 years back, but the other evidence, if assessed in a proper perspective considering the pleadings of the parties, proper
conclusions can be drawn.
In the petition in R.C.No.150 of 2006, the original petitionerlandlord had categorically averred that the building was constructed more than 15 years ago and that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. When such a specific pleading was made by the petitioner-landlord, admittedly, the respondent-tenant had not denied the same. Moreover, the respondent-tenant in para 4 of his counter had categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is constructed around 15 years ago. In view of the admission made by the respondenttenant in his counter, no further enquiry is required on this aspect. Though PWs.1 and 2 seem to have stated in their evidence that the building was constructed about 7 years back, no importance can be given to the same in view of the admission made by RW.1 himself that he was inducted as a tenant about 12 years ago. Moreover, the documents filed by the petitioners clinchingly establish that they have paid municipal taxes in 1990, 1992 and 1993. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the old building was demolished and in its place a new building has been constructed and that the documents pertain to the old building. There is no evidence to substantiate the said contention. When the tenant in his counter had admitted that the building was constructed about 15 years ago prior to the filing of the petition no further evidence is required. Absolutely, there are no merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed. The respondent-tenant shall pay all the arrears of rent and electricity dues if any on or before 30.09.2011. On such condition he is permitted to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner-landlord by 30.12.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not induct any third party into the possession of the mulgi in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to
costs.
________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J
Dt. 25th August, 2011 PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Control Court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition given the building construction date admissions.
Whether the revision petition against the appellate authority's judgment allowing eviction deserves maintenance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RESPONDENT-tenant
PETITIONER-landlord
B.CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
