High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging eviction orders under the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The court upheld findings of willful default in rent payment and bona fide requirement of premises by landlords.
Petitioner granted time until 30.09.2020 to vacate premises and deposit arrears of rent.
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.
IN THE HIGHCOURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRDDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL EVISION PETITION NO: 603OF 2020
Petition under section 22 of r ebnganaBuildings(Lease,Rentand conviction) controt Act, 1960, aggrievedby the orderdated3011212019in RCA No.50of 2019on the file of the Additional chiefJudge, city Small causescourt,Hyderabadpreferred against the order dated 21tO112019in RC No.188 ol 2016 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
N,4ohd. Quasim, S/o. lt/lohd Ghouse,
,..REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dated 30.12.2019 in R.C.A.No.50 of 2019 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad.
For the Petitioner : SRI T.BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondents : SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, Advocate
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDIIA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.603 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of rhe Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') challenging the order dr.30.12.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.50 of 2019 of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad ( for short 'the Appellate authority'), confirming the order d1.21.01.2019 passed in R.C.No.l88 of 2016 ol the I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Coun, Hyderabad ( for short 'the Rent Controller').
Theplea qf respon{ents in R.C.No.l88 of 2016
N4SR.J crp 603_2020
one room and open yard situate at Patelnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad (referred to as 'B' Schedule Property) having also acquired the same undel the above referred Partition Deed.
6, The respondents contended that petitioner originally obtained the errtire properly bearing Municipal No.5-5-21215/8 with the land area of 51i.70 Sq.Yds. from the father of respondents, viz., Sri P.Arjun
J
MSR.J crp-601,2020
Rao in the year 2004 on oral tenancy for establishing Motor Mechanical works unit on monthly rent; that the tenancy was from month to month commencing from the first day of the month and ending with last day of the same month; that monthly rent was exclusive of electricity consumption charges and was payable on or before 51h of every English Calendar month; after the death of their father, the petitioner was paying monthly rents to respondents and he last paid the said monthly rent for June,2016 in July,2016 on 14.07 .2016 at the rate of Rs.l 800/- per month and thereafter committed default in payment of rents.
8, It was also contended that the respondents were doing the Motor Mechanical Works under the name and style 'M/s. Sri Sai Baba Motor' Works' under tenancy since November, 2012 in another property having obtained it on lease frorn one S. Subhash Reddy on a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/- p.m., and that since one year prior to the liling of the eviction petition in December, 2016, the landlord of the
MSR., crp_603_2020
respondents was demanding the respondents to vacate the rented premises for his personal use. They contended that they had no option but to shift their business to the A and B Schedule property ( refered to hereafter as 'RC schedule property') and they bonafidely require it for doing their business. They also stated that they did not own any other non-residential property in the Twin-Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and that the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the said ground also.
Countcr-aflid:rvit ofpctitione r in the R.C.
9, Counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner opposing grant o1' relief to the lespondents in the R.C.
I l. He denied that thele was any partition of the property or division ol the same into separate portions as per the Partition Deed dt.29.04.2006 and contended that it was never acted upon.
)
tvlS il,J crp_603 2020
and obtained status quo order therein, and the said order is still subsisting.
M5R., crp 603 2020
examination and his evidence was again eschewed on 14.12.20i8 and the matter was posted for arguments
The issues framed bv the Rent Controller
" 1. Wltether lhe respondenl has committed willftrl default in payment of rent.s fr-om Jul1,, 20l 6 to Noventber, 201 6 @ Rs. 1800/- per monlh amounting to Rs.9.000/-?
pelitioner is bona lide ?
J. To rvltcrt relief ?"
'l he ordcr of thc Rcnt Controller
2I. He held that since the petitioner did not choose to enter into the witness box whatever pleading he had taken in his counter has to be ignored and an adverse inference has to be drawn.
22, He held that the plea of petitioner that he was not informed about execution of the Partition Deed cannot be accepted and he did not adduce evidence to prove that he did not commit willful delault in payment of rents from July, 2016 to November, 2016.
'l
MSI{.J crp 603 2020
Thc ordcr of the ADpcllxtc Authorih
26, This was questioned by the petitioner in R.C.A.No.50 of 2019 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in an appeal filed under Section 20(1) ofthe Act.
\1Si crp 601 2020
30, It obsen,ed that the plea of rvillful default in pavment of rents made by the respondents stood established because the petitioner did not file any documents to show that he had given the rents to the respondents or that he had sent the same through Money Orders.
9
MSt{.i crp_603 2020
fiderequirement and that the petitioner did not enterthe witnessbox and did not disprove the plea of the respondents.
'fhe consideration bv the Court
crp-603 2020
11
MSR.J crp 603,2020
contended that the respondents had entered into a registered Agreement with one Surender Singh Mann for grant of lease of the subject premises to him, according to the respondents, suchrental Agreement was entered into on an assurance given by the petitioner that he would vacate the R.C. Schedule premises, but the same was later cancelled on 03.10.2018 by them under a Deed of Cancellation which was also registered as Document No.3227 of 2018.
MS. crp_603,202[
weeks and continue to pay the rents till 30.9.2020. The petitioner shall also file an r-rndertaking that he would vacate the R.C. Schedule premises within the above time and also state that he will deposit the rents lrorr July,2016 till 30.9.2020, to the extent he had not done so, rvithin three (03) weeks fi'orr the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
Sd/-CH.VENKATESWARLU ASSISTANT REG RAR
,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
Kj .-$:
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/07/2020
ORDER
CRP.No.603 of 2020
.@<br>',q[
.f ;dE S lATt o I
i
c
10 \ut2CI0 t-b
of,o
t
DrsPrrl
DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS.
)p
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent.
Whether the eviction was based on a bona fide requirement by the landlords.
Whether there was any error of fact or law in the impugned orders directing eviction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Quasim
Vijaya Prakash
Shiv Prakash
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
