Dismissed

Hasan Maqdoom (died) v. Asghar Shareef (died)

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014CRP/4963/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an eviction order for bona fide requirement. Finding no basis to interfere with concurrent lower court findings on facts, the Court granted time for vacating possession and payment of regular rents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted time till 31-01-2015 to vacate premises subject to filing undertaking and paying rents regularly.

Hasan Maqdoom (died) Vs Asghar Shareef (died) — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4963 OF 2013

¶3

Dated:05-09-2014

¶4

Between: Hasan Maqdoom (died) and others

¶5

... PETITIONERS

¶6

AND

¶7

Asghar Shareef (died) and others

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4963 OF 2013

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The respondents filed R.C No. 8 of 2006 against the petitioners before the I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, for eviction from the suit schedule properties, by pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement of the premises for personal use. It was mentioned that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents and that the original owner of the premises needed it for personal occupation. The petitioners opposed the R.C by filing a counter affidavit. Through its order dated 23-09-2010, the Rent Controller allowed the R.C on finding that the ground of bona fide requirement is proved. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed R.A No. 323 of 2010 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The R.A was dismissed on 03-10-2013. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961

¶13

Heard Sir P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioners did not dispute that they are the tenants of the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the Rent

¶15

Controller framed the following points for consideration:

¶16

“1. Whether the quantum of rent is Rs.300/- per month or Rs.600/- per month in respect of the schedule premises?

¶17

2. Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rent from March 2003 onwards as alleged by the petitioner.

¶18

3. Whether the petitioner requires the petition schedule premises bonafidely for personal occupation of his son?”

¶19

On behalf of the respondents, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, RW 1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-42 were filed. The Rent Controller held that there was no wilful default in payment of the rents. However, the ground of bona fide requirement was held proved. In R.A No. 323 of 2010, the appellate authority framed the following point for consideration,

¶20

“Whether the order of the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad passed in R.C. No. 8/2006 dated 23.9.2010 is unsustainable under law, if so on what reasons?”

¶21

and answered against the petitioners.

¶22

The Rent Controller and the appellate authority recorded concurrent findings about the bona fide requirement. The principal ground urged before this Court is that there is discrepancy in what was pleaded in the R.C on the one hand and the evidence on the other hand, in relation to the plea of bona fide requirement. It was also pleaded that during the pendency of the R.C, new premises were acquired by the children of the original landlord.

¶23

On appreciation of evidence, both the authorities held that the requirement still subsists. The landholder was a senior citizen and he had four sons and three daughters. He stated that he is living in a very small house and the schedule premises are needed for the accommodation of his children. Ex.R-39 is a sale deed through which some of the children of the landholder are said to have acquired a premises. Even that sale deed was taken into account and both the Courts held that the bona fide requirement still subsists. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact.

¶24

The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted time till the end of January, 2015 for vacating the premises, subject to their filing an undertaking within four weeks from today before the Rent Controller to the effect that they would put the respondents in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31-01-2015. They shall also be under the obligation to pay the rents regularly.

¶25

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

05-09-2014 ks

¶27

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

Hasan Maqdoom (died) v. Asghar Shareef (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Maqdoom (died) v. Asghar Shareef (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chander Dacha, Vs The Vinayaka Residency Welfare Association

Kishan Dev Sharma Vs Kasur Begum

Hareesh Kakarla Vs E.Setha

Syed Faheem Khadri Vs Smt. Vanam Bharathamma

Ahmed Mohiuddin, Vs Dr.v.Sampath

Badrinarayan Bohra Vs Dr Chandra Prakash Jain