This revision petition regarding eviction was dismissed. The court held the petitioner's denial of the respondent's title was not bona fide and found willful default in rent payment, upholding the appellate order.
Civil revision petition dismissed; miscellaneous petition disposed of; no order as to costs.
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 L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P.No.6104 of 2010
ORDER :
The respondent filed R.C.No.3 of 2005 in the Court II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from a mulgi, bearing No.16-2-4/5, Sayeedabad, Hyderbad. He pleaded that the mulgi was purchased from the original owner through sale deed, dated 31.01.2004 and though the tenancy of the petitioner over the premises was attorned to him, he did not pay the rents and thereby, committed default for ten months before filing the suit. The ground of denial of title was also pleaded. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the R.C. It was stated that he was the tenant of original owner by name Smt. Khatija Sultana and when she has fallen ill, he paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards consideration for the mulgi. According to him, the landlady promised to execute the sale deed, since she has already received the entire consideration, but unfortunately she died on 02.10.1995 without executing the sale deed. He stated that when the legal representatives of the landlady refused to execute sale deed, he filed O.S.No.1642 of 2004 in the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance. He disputed the right of the respondent to insist on payment of rents or to file the R.C.
The trial Court dismissed the R.C. through its order, dated 03.10.2008. Thereupon, the respondent filed R.A.No.170 of 2008 in the Court of Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 16.11.2010. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri S.C.Rangappa, learned counsel for he petitioner and Sri P.Venugopal Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
The R.C. was filed on two grounds viz., willful default in payment of the rent and mala fide denial of title. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether there is any jural relationship in between the petitioner and the respondent and the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide?
2. Whether the tenant/respondent is committed wilful default in payment of the rents and is liable to be evicted from the petitioner schedule premises?
On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were filed. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.15 were filed. The trial Court dismissed the O.P. and in the R.A. filed by the respondent, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the appellant and the respondent and whether the denial of the title of the appellant to the petition schedule premises by the respondent bona fide?
2. whether the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents and is liable
to be evicted from the petition schedule premises?
3. whether there is any grounds to interfere with the orders of the Rent Controller?
The appeal was allowed.
It is not in dispute that the original tenancy of the petitioner was with Smt. Khatija Sultana and the respondent came into picture at a later point of time. The respondent demanded the rent from the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to recognize the respondent as the owner of the premises and by that time, O.S.No.1642 of 2004 was already pending. That however was dismissed and the petitioner did not take any steps to carry the matter in appeal. Therefore, he has reconciled to the fact that the plea of there existing the oral agreement of sale between himself and the landlady and payment of Rs.30,000/- towards entire consideration stood belied. With that, the petitioner has no alternative except to recognize the respondent as his landlord and to pay the rents. That however did not take place. It is a matter of record that before the house was purchased, the respondent got a notice published in the newspaper and no objections were received thereto. The petitioner failed to establish his right of ownership over the property. Added to that, no other person claiming through the original owner demanded rents. Therefore, the denial of the title of the respondent by the petitioner was not bona fide. The conclusion arrived by the lower appellate Court is correct.
Coming to the question of wilful default in
payment of rents, the ground virtually stands established, since the petitioner did not pay the rents ever since the respondent purchased the premises. His plea that being the owner of the premises, he need not pay the rents stands rejected with his failure to establish his right of ownership. Further, the petitioner failed to prove his plea that the amount was paid in advance or otherwise. Since it is not even the case of the petitioner that he paid the rent for the period in question, the inescapable conclusion is that he committed default. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 15.04.2013 JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P.No.6104 of 2010
Date: 15.04.2013
JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner bona fide denied the respondent's title to the premises?
Whether the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents?
Petitioner
Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
