Dismissed

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust, Hyderabad v. Satish Kumar, Hyderabad

Telangana HC12 Nov 2020CRP/3760/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a landlord challenging an appellate order that set aside an eviction decree. The court upheld the appellate judgment finding that the tenant was conducting a real estate business.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; judgment and decree of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirmed; no order as to costs.

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust, Hyderabad Vs Satish Kumar… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3760 OF 2017

¶6

Petition under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, daled 1610212017 made in RA No 11412012 in RC No,416/201 7 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad preferred against the order passed in RC No.416/2007 dated 2710312012 on the file of the lll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust, # 4-5-159 Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad through its l,4anaging Trustee, Sri Kamal Narayan Aganrual, S/o. Late Udmilal Agaruual, R/o.B-7-470l1, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Satish Kumar, S/o. Arjun Kumar, R/o. Flat No.209, Sagar Apartments, Domalguda, Hvderabad

¶12

...RES,.NDENT/ A''ELLANT/ REspoNDENT

¶13

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

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI AADESH VARMA

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3760 of 2017

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The 'present Civil Revisior-r I)etition is file'd unrlcr Section 22 of the Anrlhra Pradesh lluilclings (Lease, Rent ancl Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge, ailowed the said appeal filed by the respondent/ tenant by setting aside the order of the learnecl Ill..Ac.[ditional Rent Controller-cum_15tr, Junior Civil Juclge, Hyclerabad, passed in R.C.No.416 of 2007 dated27.03.2072

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that thc p)sfif lsnsl/ Iandlorcl filed a petition unc{er Section 10 (2) (,) anrl (iii) of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent herein from the petitiorr schec'lu Ietl premises stating that the petitioner is a l'rust constitr,Ltecl for promotion of social and educational development of Ralastl-rani Samaj in particuiar and the public in general under the Trust Deed, dated 18.10.1965 and that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Mulgi (shop) bearing M.C.H.No.4-5-21,4/7 / A, admeasuring 12 x 8 square feet in the building of Rajasthani Bhavan situatecl at {omen's College road leading from Kothi to Sultan Bazar, Ilyclerabac'l; that the respondent obtaineti the saicl shol.r on rent for his Textile business in December, 1995 ancl on 22.04.2002, the

¶20

¶21

respondent executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and agreed to pay rent at Rs.1634/- per month including amer-rity charges orr or before 1Oth of each English Calendar mor-rtl-r and that the respondent also agreed to pay all the rates, taxes and charges of everv description including ;rroperty tax, electlicitv consumption charges etc. It was also stated that the responclent has not occupied the said shop and it was alwavs kept closed uncler lock and key for the last three years and that he lvas not doing anv 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 further stated that there was no cleaning and maintenance of the shop, so that the rats have entered therein and damaged the shop.

¶22

1'lre respondent/ tenant filed a counter, itttcr nlia, contending that the responc'lent has never closed the L-rusiness, bu t he has changocl his busir-ress from textile to real estate; that he, was using the saicl premises for the purpose of real estate office and the office usec'l to be opened daily tn,o or three hours in the after-noon; that the Mar-rager of the petitioner-trust used to come to the shop every month and collected the rent and that the respondent has nevet' 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 strpulated period oi tenancy is for 15 years and the lease is still

¶23

¶24

subsisting and the same is not cancelled by either partV altcl^further there is no violation of any terms by the responrlent and as such the petitioner has been estoppec'l from fillng the eviction petition.

¶25

During the coulse of tria1, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 rvere marked on behalf of the petitioner/ landlord and R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-87 were marked on behalf of the respondent/ tenant. Exs.X-1 to X-5 were also rnarked

¶26

After appreciating the oral and clocumentary evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the saicl R.C.No.416 of 2007 and directecl the respondent/ tenant to vacate ancl hanclover the vacant possession of the scheduletl property to the petitior-rer/ landlort-l within trvo months from the clate of orcler, failing which the petitioner is at libertv to evict the lespondent through due process of 1aw. Challenging the same, the respondent/tenant filed R.A.No.114 of 201,2. Considering the rival submissions, the appellate Court allowed the said appeal by setting aside the findings of the trial Court in R.C.No.416 of 2007 that "the respondent/ tenant was not running business in the scheduled property and hence requires to be evicted". Aggrieved by the said judgrnent, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by thc petitioner/ landlord.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ landlord would submit that the appellate Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under orcler 41 Ru Ie 31 C.P.C., has not given any indepenclent finclir.rg cxcept rnaking a sweeping observation contrar), to the documentary eviclence placed by the petitioner, admissions made by R.Ws.1 and 2 and othel witnesses on the ground of ceased to occupy the p-:remises. He further submits that the evidence of R.W.2 clearly demonstrates that the respondent/ tenant has not been carrying on any business of Real Estate and that in Exs.Xl to X5, thele is no mention that the income was derived from the Real Estate business. He further submits that the respondent/ tenant obtained the petition scheduied property for doing textile business, but he has not occupied the same and kept ciosed the premises uncler lock antl kev for the last three^years and as such he is liable to be evicted urrder Section 10 (2) (v) of the Rent Conhol Act. I-Ie further submits that though the learned h'ial Judge has rightll' given a finding that the respondent/ tenant was not carrving on business irr the scheduled property, the appellate Court without consiclering the same set aside the well considered^juclgment of the trial Court. In support of his contentions, he relied on the^following judgments:

¶30

¶31

'1 . Sree Datta Agencies rep. by its Proprietor t,. Dineslt^Kumnr Kuclrcrial

¶32

Urmila Detti (died) per L.Rs. o. Subhash Kumar2

¶33

Leela Enterprises rep, By its Proprietor^{K.Surender u. Kamar} Sultana @ Kamer Hasan3

¶34

4, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited u. Dilbahar Singha

¶35

Per contra, learned Counsel for the responclent/ tenant would submit that there was no evidence on record to show when the respondent has closed the business and that he has not doing any business in the scheduled premises. He further submitted that the pttitioner hacl no locus stntdi to file eviction petition cluring the subsistence of the tenancy and that the respondent has paicl the monthlir rents regularly without anv default.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the tenant of thc petitioner since 1995 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 r,rzithout conducting anv business, thereby the scheclulecl propertv w,as gr.ttir-rg tlamagecl as the same was not maintained properly. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of the eviclencc. and the. material availablc on record gave a finding that none of the clocuments show that the responclent \VAS cloing Real Estate business in the scheclulerl

¶37

'^{2008 Laru Suir (AP)244}

¶38

'2010 Law suit (AP) 374 l0 I 7 Larr Suil (H)dl:82

¶39

" (2u 14) e scc 78

¶40

¶41

property and in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Court can safely come to a conclusion tirat 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 he is doing Real Estate business in the scheduled property and in support of his contention he got marked Exs.R-60 to R-69, R-81 to R-87 and Ers.X-1 to X-5. A pelusal of the above documents lvould show, that the respondent has conducted certain activities in the scheclulecl property. Fulther, the terrns of the lease agreement do not restrict the lespondent from carrying orr his business in the scheduled property in his name and particularly it says that the respondent is at liberty to carry on different businesses. Exs.P2 and Ex.R 59 certified copies of lease 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 carriecl on Real Estate business in the name and style of^"Roshan". lvloreover', the petitioner hacl never con-rplainec'l that the re sponcli-.r-rt .'as not paf ing thi: rents regularlv arrcl also c1itl not complain about the misbehaviour or rnisconduct or inclulging in ani, illegal activities in the scheduled property. Therefore, the docur.nentarl, evidence produced on behalf of the respondent/ tenant clearly go to show that he is carrying on Real

¶42

¶43

Estate business in the scheduled property, as such it camrot 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 clearly show that the respondent has paid the monthly rents regularly to the petitioner w,ithout con.rmitting any default. However, no prudent person can pay the rents without conducting any business irr the schecluled propertv.^'I'herefore, the learrrer.'l appellate Jucigc founcl on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence availablc' on recorcl that the lespor-rdent is carrving on br"rsiness in the scheduled propert),. Further, the aforesaicl decisions reliecl upon bv the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶44

For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the learned appellate Judge do not suffer from anv legal infirmitv and that the learnetl Juclge is absolutely right iu fincling that certain activities pertaining to Real Estate business have been conducted by the responclent in the scheclulecl premises and therefore, I do not find any reason or justification to interfere w,ith the judgment of the appellate Court ancl as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Accordingiy, the Civii Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2017, passed in

¶46

¶47

R.A.No.114 of 2072 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes

¶48

Court, I I vclerabad.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed

¶50

There sha11 be no order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/.N.CHANDRASEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REG R

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2 The lll Additional Rent Controller -cum- 15'n Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. 3 One CC to Sri R.A.Achuthanand, Advocate (OPUC)

¶56

4 One CC to Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate (OPUC) 5 Two CD Copies K

HIGH^COURT

DATED^1211112020

b
&

ORDER

CRP.No.3760^{ol 2017}

¶63

DISMISSED.

¶64

¶65

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶66

AT HYDERABAD

¶67

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶68

PRESENT

¶69

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶70

CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O: 3760 OF 2017

¶71

Between:

¶72

Rajasthani Bhavan Trust, # 4-5-159 Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad through its l,4anaging Trustee, Sri Kamal Narayan Agarural, S/o. Late Udmilal Agarual, R/o.B-7-470l1 , Rbad No.1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶73

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶74

AND

¶75

Satish Kumar, S/o. Arjun Kumar, Rl/o. Flat No.209, Sagar Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad

¶76

...RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT

¶77

Appeal under Section 22 o'f A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against the Judgment and decree dated 1610212017 in RA No.11412012 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad preferred against the order dated 2710312012 in RC No.41 6/2007 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶78

The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.A.Achuthanand, Advocate, for the Appellant and of Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶79

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :-

¶80

'1 . That the CRP be and hereby is dismissed.

¶81

Ihat the Judgment and decree dal.ed 1610212017 in RA No.11412012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad be and hereby is confirmed and

¶82