Dismissed

M/S. Compu Island v. Ahmed Abdul Haq Roofi

Telangana HC8 Aug 2013CRP/3514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to interfere with the eviction order of the Additional Chief Judge upholding the Rent Controller's findings of wilful default and subletting, dismissing the petition while granting an extension for vacating the premises.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; eviction order confirmed; time granted till 30.11.2013 to vacate and file undertaking within 10 days.

M/S. Compu Island Vs Ahmed Abdul Haq Roofi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3514 of 2013

¶2

DATE: 08.08.2013

¶3

Between: M/s. Compu Island, Rep., by Hateem Ali, Hyderabad. …Petitioner And Ahmed Abdul Haq Roofi and another

¶4

…Respondents

¶5

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3514 of 2013

¶7

O R D E R:

¶8

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 17.6.2013 in R.A.No.231 of 2011 confirming the order of eviction dated 25.08.2011 in R.C.No.323 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶9

The 1^st respondent herein filed R.C.No.323 of 2009 under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act against the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein seeking eviction from the petition schedule premises. It was pleaded that the petition schedule premises was let out to the respondent No.2 herein in the year 1980 to carry on the business in Glass Frames and Gift Articles initially on the monthly rent of Rs.225/-. Subsequently fair rent was fixed at the Rs.1,500/- per month by order passed in R.C.No.249 of 2002 and the same was confirmed on appeal. However, the tenant stopped payment of rents from March, 2009 and moreover he had sublet the petition schedule premises to the revision petitioner (respondent No.2 in R.C.No.323 of 2009). Hence the eviction was sought on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and subletting the petition schedule premises.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent herein filed counter admitting the tenancy and the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller. However it is pleaded that as he is aged 80 years and is not keeping good health he

¶11

has handed over the business to the respondent No.2 therein (revision petitioner) and he used to pay Rs.3,200/- per month. Thus it is contended that the respondent No.2 therein is not the tenant of schedule premises as claimed. The revision petitioner (the respondent No.2 in R.C.No.323 of 2009) in his counter denied the allegation that he is a sub-tenant. It is contended that he had no knowledge that the petitioner was the owner and that he has been paying the rents regularly to the respondent No.1.

¶12

On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Rent Controller settled the following points for consideration:

¶13

(i) Whether the respondent No.1 has committed default in payment of rents from March, 2009 and if so whether the said default can be construed as wilful?

¶14

(ii) Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the petition schedule premises to the respondent No.2? (iii) To what relief?

¶15

On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller held on Point No.1 that the respondent No.1 therein committed wilful default in payment of rents from March, 2009. So far as Point No.2 is concerned, it was held that the respondent No.1 therein had sublet the premises to the respondent No.2 (revision petitioner). Accordingly, R.C.No.323 of 2009 was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within two months. Challenging the said order of eviction, dated 25.8.2011, the revision petitioner alone preferred an appeal being R.A.No.231 of 2011 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, the appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on both the points of wilful default and sub-tenancy and thus dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 17.6.2013. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and

¶17

having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Rend Controller and the Appellate Court. I am satisfied that the findings are arrived at on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and thus the eviction was rightly ordered. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.

¶18

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the petition schedule premises is a nonresidential premises, the revision petitioner is hereby granted time till 30.11.2013 for vacating the petition schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent No.1 herein provided an undertaking to that effect is filed before the learned Rent Controller within 10 days from today.

¶19

It is also made clear that the rents payable in respect of the premises in question shall be paid regularly till the vacant possession of the premises in question is handed over to the respondent No.1.

¶20

Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

__________________ G. Rohini,J

¶22

Date: 08.08.2013 KLP

M/S. Compu Island v. Ahmed Abdul Haq Roofi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Compu Island v. Ahmed Abdul Haq Roofi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badugu Madhusudhan Vs B.Narahari

E. Venkateshwar Vs Smt. Geetha

Smt. Rama Soorabathula Vs Narendra Soorabathula

Smt K. Rani Prasanna Vs P.Murthy

T.Srisailam Reddy, Vs Syed Ziauddin Ahmed

Ayesha Rizwana Vs Mushtaq Ahmed