Dismissed

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust v. Smt. Asha Devi

Telangana HC12 Nov 2020CRP/3716/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlord challenging an appellate order that set aside a trial court's eviction order. The appellate court had held that the tenant, a respondent, was conducting real estate business and had not ceased occupation of the premises for the period cited in the eviction application. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' fin

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust Vs Smt. Asha Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

c lvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 3716 OF 2017

¶7

Petition under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 to revise the order dated 1610212017 in RA No.115/2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RC No.41712007 dated 2710312012 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust, # 4-5-159 Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad through its lVanaging Trustee, Sri Kama! Narayan Agaruual, S/o. Late Udmilal Agaruual, R/o.8-7-470l'1 , Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Asha Devi, Wio Arjun Kumar,^premises No.4-5-21417, Beside Gandhi Gyan It4andir, Koti, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. Fl/o Flat No.209, Sagar Apartments, Domalguda' Hyderabad

¶13

...RES'oNDENT/ A''ELLANT/ RES'.NDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. R.A.ACHUTHANAND

¶15

Coun'sel for the Respondent : SRI A.VARMA

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE IUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3716 of 2077

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), aggrieved by the judgment and clecree, dated76.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Srnall Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge, allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent/ tenant,, by setting aside the order of the learned III-Additional Rent Controller-cum-15th Junior Civil ludge, Hyderabad, passed in R.C.No.417 ot2007 dated27.03.2012

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ lancliord filed a petition under Section 10 (2) (v) and (iii) of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent herein from the petition scheduled premises stating that the petitioner is a Trust constituted for promotion of social and educational development of Rajasthani Samaj in particular and the public in general under the Trust Deed, dated 18.10.1965 and t'hat the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Mulgi (shop) bearing M.C.H.No.4-5-214/7, admeasuring 12 x 25 square feet in the building of Rajasthani Bhavan situated at Women's College road leading from Kothi to Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad; that the respondent obtained the said shop on rent for her Textile business in February, 1968 and on 22.04.2002, the

¶22

¶23

respondent executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and agreed to pay rent at Rs.908/- per month inclucling amenity charges on or before 10th of each English Calendar month and that the respondent also agreed to pay al1 the rates, taxes and charges of every description including pl'operty tax, electricity consurnption charges etc. It was also stated that the respondent has not occupied the said shop and it was always kept closed under lock and key for the last three years and that she was not doing any business therein, even the name board was also removed, as such the respondent ceased to occupy the scheduled shop for continuous period of more than three years without reasonable cause. It was fr"rlther sta ted that there was no cleaning and maintenance of the shop, so that the rats have entered therein and damaged the shop.

¶24

The lespondent/ terrant filed a counter, itter alia, contending that the respondent has never closed the business, but she has changed her business frorn textile to real estate; that she rvas using the said premises for the purpose of real estate offlce and the office used to be opened daily two or three hours in the afternoon; that the Manager of the petitioner-tust used to come to the shop every month and collected the rent and that the respondent has never committed any default in payment of rent. It was also contended that the tenancy of the scheduled property was covered under a registered lease deed and the same is a valid contract and stipulated period of tenancy is for 15 years and the lease is stil1 subsisting and

¶25

¶26

the same is not cancelled by either party and further there is no violation of any terms by the respondent and as such the petitioner has been estopped from filing the eviction petition.

¶27

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked on behalf of the petitioner/landlord and R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-135 were marked on behalf of the respondent/ tenant. Exs.X-1 to X-5 were also marked.

¶28

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the said R.C.No.417 of 2007 and directed the respondent/ tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the scheduled property to the petitioner/ landlord within two months from the date of order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to evict the respondent through due process of law. Challenging the sarne, the respondent/ tenant filecl R.A.No.115 of 2012. Considering the rival submissions, the appellate Coult allowed the said appeal by setting aside the finclings of the trial Court in R.C.No.417 ot2007 that "the respondent/tenant was not running business in the scheduled property and hence requires to be evicted". Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ landlord

¶29

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learnecl Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

¶30

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/landlord would submit that the appellate Court has failed.to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record and rejected the well considered judgment passeci by the Primary Tribunal holding that the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises; that the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the admissions of witnesses of R.W.1 as to the ground of ceased to orcupy the premises and that the appellate Court over turned the judgment of the Rent Controller without giving any cogent reasons which do not satisfy the legal requirement of Order ttr1 Rule 31 C.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner has filed Exs.P1 to P6 and more particularly Ex.P6 is the eleckicity consumption bill in respect rf the scheduled premises, which shows that the reading unit is zero and the Department demanded minimum bilI. He further submits that the letter under Ex.R7B addressed by the respondent clearly shows that to overcome with the documentary evidence, the respondent gave the allegeci representation to the Elech'iclty Department and, therefore, the contention of the respondent that the electricity meter was struck cannot be accepted. He further submits that the evidence of R.W.2 clearly demonsh'ates that the respondent/ tenant has not been carrying on any business of Real Estate and that in Exs.X1 to X5, there is no mention that the income was derived from the Real Estate business. He further submits that Exs.X1 to X5 have not been proved in evidence as the respondent has not entered into the

¶32

¶33

witness box. He further submits that the respondent/ tenant obtained the petition scheduled property for doing textile business, but she has not occupied the same and kept closed the premises under lock and key for the last three years and as such she is liable to be evicted under Section t0 (2) (v) of the Rent Control Act. He further submits that though the learned trial^judge has rightly given a finding that the respondent/ tenant was not carrying on business in the scheduled property, the appellate Court without considering the same set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court. He further submits that the appellate Court has failed to consider that the respondent has caused damage to the scheduled property and that the appellate Court has not given any finding in this regard.

¶34

In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments:

¶35

Sree Datta Agencies rep. by its Proprietor a. Dinesh Kumar Kucherint

¶36

Urmila Deai (died) per L.Rs. a. Subhash Kumar2

¶37

Leela Entetrises rep. By its Proprietor K.Surender tt. Kamar Sultana @ Kamer Hasan3

¶38

Hindustan Petroleum Coryoration Limited o. Dilbahar Singh+

¶39

Per confra, learned Counsel for the respondent/ tenant would submit that there was no evidence on record to show when the

¶40

respondent has closed the business and that she has not doing ar-ry business in the scheduled premises. He further submitted that the petitioner had no loctts standi to file eviction petition during the

¶41

2008 Law Suit (AP) 244

¶42

2010 Law Suit (AP) 374

¶43

201'7 Law Suit (Hyd) 282

¶44

(2014) 9 SCC 78

¶45

¶46

subsistence of the tenancy and that the respondent has paid the monthly rents regularly without any default.

¶47

It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner since 1968 and in the year 2002 the lease agreement was renewed and reduced into writing for a period of 15 years. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondent had kept the scheduled property under lock and key without conducting any business, thereby the scheduled property was getting damaged as the same was not n-raintained properly. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of the evidence and the material available on recorcl gave a finding that none of the documents show that the respondent was doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in the absence of the documentary evidence the Court can safely come to a conclusion that the respondent ceased to occupy the scheduled property for more than three years as alleged by the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that she is doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in support of her contention she got marked Exs.R-61 to R-72, R-75 to R-135 and Exs.X-1 to X-5. A perusal of the above documerrts would show that the respondent has conducted certain activities in the scheduled property. Further, the terms of the lease agreement do not restrict the respondent from carrying on his business in the scheduled property in her name and particularly it says that the respondent is at liberty to carry on different businesses. Exs.P2 and Ex.R-60 certified copies of lease

¶48

¶49

deeds further mention that the respondent is at liberty to run Book and Stationery, Computers and Computer Education, Medical and General Stores, Electronics, Real Estate and Handicraft, Ice Cream Parlour and Readymade Garments business in the scheduled property. Thus, the respondent had carried on Real Estate business in the name and style of^"Roshan". Moreover, the petitioner had never complained that the respondent was not paying the rents regularly and also did not complain about the misbehaviour or misconduct or indulging in any illegal activities in the scheduled property. Therefore, the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent/ tenant clearly go to show that she is carrying on Real Estate business in the scheduled property, as such it cannot be said that the respondent has kept the premises under lock and key and not maintaining the same properly thereby scheduled property is being damaged. Further, Exs.R1 to R58 rent receipts would ren ts clearly show that the respondent has paid the monthly regularly to the petitioner without committing any default. However, no prudent person can pay the rents without conducting any business in the scheduled property. Further, the contention of the respondent is that the electricity meter pertaining to the shop was not functioning and as such they have made a complaint to the concerned department vide letter Ex.78 ancl that the electricity department responded to their complaint under Ex.79 stating that the electricity meter has been changed on 27.09.2006 as it got

¶50

¶51

strucked. Thus, Exs.78 and 79 go to show that the consumption shown under Ex.P6 bills i.e., showing minimum amount of bill is not because of the respondent not using the petition scheduled premises, but because of the defect in the electric meter put up in the said premises. Therefore, the learned appellate Judge found on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record that the respondent is carrying on diffelent transactions pertaining to Real Estate business in the scheduled property. Merely because the said documents do not mention the name and style of the business under which the respondent was originally running her cloth business under the name and style 'Roshan', it cannot be said that no business was being run in the petition scheduled premises by the respondent, particularly when the lease agreement which u,as marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.R-60 do not reskict the respondent to carry on business in the personal capacity and that she has to carry on the said business only in the name and style of 'Roshan'. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶52

For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the learned appellate Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the learned Judge is absolutely right in firrding that certain activities pertaining to Real Estate Lrusiness have been conducted by the respondent in the scheduled premises and therefore, I do not find any reason or^{justification} to interfere with

¶53

¶54

the judgment of the appellate Court and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶55

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, daled 76.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Sma1l Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶56

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Sd/-IV.MANJULA ASSISTANT RE RAR

/iTRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER