Dismissed

M/S. Sri Srinivasa Electronics v. Dr. Surender Kumar Grover

Telangana HC12 Sept 2022CRP/5667/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction for willful rent default was upheld. The court held that deposits before a Rent Controller lacking jurisdiction did not discharge payment obligations, and contractual grounds consistent with the rent-control statute survived its application. The revision was dismissed, with three months to vacate subject to an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Three months from receipt of the order to vacate, conditional on filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller within 15 days of the order.

M/S. Sri Srinivasa Electronics Vs Dr. Surender Kumar… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN CIVIL REVISION PE TITIO N NO: 5667 OF 2011

¶5

(Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the orders dated 28.10,2011 made in R.A.No.358 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad prefered against the Order made in R.C.No.194 of 2006 dated 31.08.2010 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.)

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Electronics, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri J.Venugopala Rao S/o J.Srinivasa Rao, R/o. M.No.5-4-423lB/A, Nampaiiy Square, Hyderabai.'

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Dr. Surender Kumar Grover, S/o. Late Lala Jagannath peshwari Landlord, Rl/o. plot No.449, Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

C.R.P.M.P. NO: 7966 OF 2011

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the orders passed in RA.No.358i2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad 28.1O.2011 against the orders passed in RC.No.194/2006 on the file of the lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad dated 31.08.2010 pending disposal of the present CRP in the interest of justice

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. R A ACHUTHANAND

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent : SRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE

¶16

The Court made the following: OROER

MI-,J Crp_5667 20ll

I I i

THE HONOURABLD SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶21

CTVIL REVISION PETITIoN NO.5667 0F 2011

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011 in R.A.No.358 of 2O1O on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (lower appellate Court), wherein and whereby the order dated 31.08.2010 in R.C.No.194 of 2006 on the lile of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (Rent Controller), was confirmed. R,C.No.194 of 2O06, filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner herein from the propert5r in question, rvas allowed.

¶24

The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the tenant and the 1andlord, respectively.

¶25

The pleadings of the landlord show that he is the owner of premises bearing No.5-4-423/8/A., Ground floor of Hotel Shanti Nivas Building, Nampall-v Cross Roads, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, it is referred to as 'scheduled premisesJ. He let out the scheduled premises to the tenant @^{Rs.9O0/-per month. The landlord sought eviction on two}

¶26

¶27

ML,J Crp_5667 _2011

¶28

grounds, one is willful default in payment of rent and the other is subletting the scheduied premises by the tenant to third party without any right. The original tenancy was entered on 15. l0.l982 and the rent payable was loth of every next succeeding month. Default was pleaded from October, 1999 to March, 2006, total arrears of rent comes to Rs.70,200/-. It was also pleaded that the tenant filed R.C.No.2l7 of 20O1 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the landlord for permission to deposit the rents and the salne was allowed by order dated 15.02.20O2. Challenging the same, the landlord liled R.A.No. 157 of 2OO2 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was also allowed by order dated 05.O9.2005, setting aside the order dated 15.O2.2OO2 on the ground that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction since the rent exceeds the statutory limit prescribed under the Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act). Challenging the said order; the tenant preferred a civil revision petition and he withdrew the same subsequently. Thereafter, the landlord filed the present R.C.

¶29

¶30

ML,J Crp_5667 _2011

¶31

The case of the tenant is that he admits the original tenancy, initia-l rent and the existing rent. He also pleaded that he deposited a sum of Rs.25,0O0/- with the landlord towards refundable deposit. He also pleaded that the property tax was excluded from the rent. The rent from JuIy, 1999 to December, 1999 was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord by way of cheques, but the cheques were not encahsed. Therefore, the tenant sent the rent amount for the months from January, 2OOO to July, 2OOO through postal orders. For the months of August and September of 2000 the rent was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord through cheques. The tenant sent the money orders for the months lrom October, 200O to February, 2001. Subsequently, the tenant liled R.C.No.217 of 2O0 I for permission to deposit the rent, and upon permission, he deposited the rent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for the period from October, 2000 to May, 200 1 He also deposited the rents upto August, 2005 i.e., till R.A.No. 157 of 2002 was allou,ed observing that i Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain R.C.No.217 of 2OOl. Subsequently, the tenant preferred the revision, but the same w.is ',l,ithdrarvn. After service ol summons in the

I I

c,p_s66?_[f i

¶36

present rent control case i.e., R.C.No.194 of 2006, the tenant paid rent through pay orders of Rs.7,g00/_ covering the period from September, 2OOS to April, 20O6 and Rs. 10,800/- covering the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000. According to the tenant, there was no default in payment of rent. He also pleaded ihat there was no subletting of the scheduled premlses. On the above grounds, the tenant sought to dismiss the case.

¶37

E The Rent Controller, on the basis of the above pleadings, has framed the following issues:

¶38

" 1 . Whether the resoonclent -has committed willful default in payment of .e.rts from October, 1999 onwards? e"J*".t"?the^{respondent has sublet the premises} to

¶39

To what relief the petitioner is entitled for?,,

¶40

The landlord, to support his case, examined p.W. 1 and relied upon Exs.p_l to p_4. The tenant, to support its case, examined R.W. 1 and relied upon Exs.R-I io R_gl.

¶41

The Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that there was willful default in payment of rent for the period from October, 1999 to September, 2OOO and also found that after the appeal i.e., R.A.No. i57 of 2002 was allowed hoiding thar the I Additional Rent Controller,

¶42

¶43

ML,J Crp_5667 20tt

¶44

Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the tenant had not withdrawn the rent arrounts deposited with the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and not paid the same to the landlord. This conduct of the tenant is treated as willful default by the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller did not agree that the tenant had sublet the premises. On the above findings, the Rent Controller alowed the case.

¶45

Challenging the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred R.A.No.35g of 2010 and the lower appellate Court held that there was willful default of rents for the period considered by the Rent Controller and also held that there r.l.as aiso non-compliaace of Rules S and 16 of the Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules) white depositing the rent which a-lso amounts to willful default. Whiie holding so, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the ten€u1t-

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant has contended that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the default period, and failed to consider that even if there was willful default, since the landlord was hasir€. the advance amount

I , I ! i I E

I I I I I

ML,J Crp_5667 2011

of Rs.2S,OOO /- with him, he should have adjusted that amount for the default period. If such adjustment is done, automatically there is no default for the period covering from October, L999 to September, 2000. It is also his contention that the arnounts deposited before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad during the pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2001 and R.A.No.157 of 2OO2 could have been withdrawn by the landlord a-fter dismissal of R.A.No.157 of 2OO2, bot he did not do so. Thus, the question of witlful default does not arlse.

¶52

It is also contended that when there was a finding that the Act is not applicable, the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the tenant has not complied Rules S and 16 of the Rules. Hence, such hnding amounts to giving a contradictory finding. It is his last contention that in view of the findings in the previous proceedings holding that the tenancy is not covered under the statutory tenancy, the defaults if any committed anterior to the date of amendment Act which carne into force on 28.05.2005, whereby contractual tenancy becoming a statutory tenancy cannot be a ground to evict the tenant from the scheduied premises.

¶53

¶54

c,p-seetlilt

¶55

On the contrar5z, Iearned counsel for ttre landlord has contended that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record in holding that there was willful default in payment of rents covering the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000 and also for non_payment of rent which was deposited in the I Additiona-t Rent Controller, Hyderabad. When R.A.No. 157 of 2OO2 was allowed holding that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the tenant either ought to have withdrawn the rents and paid to the landlord or ought to have paid his own money and withdraw such amount. Non-payment of rent for such period would amount to willful default which rn,as rightly considered by the both the Courts below and hence, such finding requires no interference.

¶56

It is also his submission that in addition to the above concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the appellate Court lound rhat $,hen the tenant had been depositing the rent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the assumption that the rela.tion between the tenant ald the landlord rs covered by the Act, he has not complied the statutory requirement of Rules 15 and 1.6 of the Rules, as per which the tenant is required to intimate the depositing of

ML,J Crp_5667 20ll

rent to the landlord through a specific notice. Non_ compliance of the same also amounts to willful default. This was also taken as an additional ground by the iower appellate Court to dismiss the appeal, which cannot be found fault with by this Court.

¶63

It is his last submission that the contractual terms existing between the landlord and the tenant prior to the relationship covers under the Amendment Act No. IZ of 2OO5 would not automatically wiped out in entirety but the terms which are only repugnant to the provisions of the Act would only unenforceable and rest of the terms are binding on the landlord and tenant under the Act. According to him, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that the grounds available for the landlord prior to the relationship covered under the Act are not available is unmerited.

¶64

The evidence on record shows that the tenant disputed non-payment of rent for the period covering October, 1999 to September,2OOO. The evidence on record also shows that D.W. I admitted that there was no proof to show that the rent was paid to the landlord for the period covering October, 1999 to September, 2000. As per the pleadings of the tenant, the rent was paid for the said period through six

ML,J Crp_5667]0ll

cheques and subsequently, he sent postal orders. However, in the evidence produced under Exs.R-79 to 8I, the Courts below found that the pay orders have been produced from the bank. The Rent Controller noticing the anomaly in the pleadings and the admissions by the witness in the chief examination, vis-ir-vis documents produced, found that the bank pay orders claimed to have been sent to the landlord were u,holly unreliable. Consequently, he found that there was willful default for the said period. This was also taken note b-v the lower appellate Court. I found that the said finding, r.r,hich was conlirmed by the lower appellate Court, is based on the evidence, and hence, such finding cannot be disturbed in the present revision.

¶69

Coming to the next default taken by the Rent Controller, admittedly the tenant had deposited the rents before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for the period from October, 2000 to A'ugurst, 2005. The said rent was deposited during the pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2OOl and R.A.No. 157 of 2O02. Ultimately, in R.A.No.157 of 2OO2, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad found that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction. This finding was assailed by the tenant in the

¶70

¶71

ML,J Crp_5667 _2011

¶72

form of revision, but he withdrew the same. That means, the linding in R.A.No.ISZ of 2OO2 holding that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction has become final.

¶73

Admittedly, rental arrears for the period of pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2OOI and R.A.No.1SZ of 2OO2, the tenanr did not make any attempt to pay such arrears to the landiord either by way of withdrawa.l of amount which he has deposited before the I Additionaj Rent Controller, Hyderabad or by way of separate payment for the period covering the said proceedings.

¶74

In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that it was always open tbr the landlord to withdraw such amount. It is also his contention that there was no order in R.A.No.157 of 2OO2 clarifying who i.e., either the landlord or the tenant, can withdraw the amount deposited before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. This contention is not merited for the reason that once the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad held that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction, the landlord cannot tay any claim over the amount deposited before the I Additional Rent

¶75

¶76

c,"_566?sf i

¶77

controller, Hyderabad. It is for the tenant to withdraw such amount and pay the same to the landlord. Admittedty, till date, such amount is lying with the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Therefore, this conduct of the tenant, after disposal of R.A.No.15Z of 2OO2 and withdrawal of revision in not paying the rent, tantamount to willful default for the period covered under the said proceedings. This evidence was righfly appreciated by the Rent Controller and the lower appellate Court. Such findings do not suffer from any irregrlarity.

¶78

In R.A.No.1SZ of 2OO2, the Chief Judge, City SmaI Causes Court, Hyderabad found that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction and also taken note of non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules by the tenant during the period of deposit of rent. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that when the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad held that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the lower appellate Court ought not to have gone into the issue of non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules. This argument is a-lso unmerited for the reason that the tenant, while depositing the rents on the

¶79

¶80

ML.J Crp_5667 2Ol

¶81

assumption that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad was having jurisdiction, had not complied with the statutory requirement of issuance of notice to the landlord about the deposit of the amount.

¶82

The learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that the landlord in his cross_exarnination admitted that the tenant deposited the amount before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and if such admission is taken into consideration, non-compliance of Rures 5 and 16 0f the Rules by the tenant has no sigrrificance. This contention is a-lso devoid of merits for the reason tllat what is admitted is actual position after verilication. When the statute prescribes a procedure to be adopted, the tenant is required to adopt the same and it is, in fact, mandatory. Hence, non-compliance of such procedure amounts to willful default even though deposit was made before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. This was the law laid down by the Apex Court. Reference to Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules was in the context of assessing the conduct of the tenant but not otherwise. Therefore, the Iindings of the lower appellate Court on this aspect also do not suffer from any irregularity.

¶83

¶84

ML,J Crp_5667 20ll

¶85

The contention^{of the tenant regardingthe adjustment} of the rent amounts^{with the advanceamount available with} the landlord is concerned,^{admittedly Rs.25,0OO/-was} available with the landlord'^{The amount for the willful} default period from October,^{1999 to September, 2OOO} comes to Rs. 10,800/-.^The amount^{for the other defaulted} period from October, 2000 to August,^{2OO5 comesto} Rs.51,300/-. Assuming that^{such advanceamount} adjustable towards arrears,^{even after such adjustment, still} there is default of nearly^{Rs.35,O0O/-whichwas not paid till} date to the landlord.^{Both the Courtsbelowfound that if the} adjustment is made, still^{the balance amount is falling short} and hcnce, the second^{default is also committed by the} tenant. Therefore, this^{contention has become insignificant'}

¶86

21 . The next submission^{of the learned counselfor the} tenant is that the^{landlord cannot initiate the eviction} proceedings on the ground^{of default of paymentof rent} anterior to coming into^{force of amendmentAct whichcame} in the year 2005. By the^{AmendmentAct No' 17 of 2OO5'} Section 32 of the Act^{was amended and the amendedsection} is as follou,s

¶87

"32. Act not^{apply tocertain buildings:-} 'lhe provisions of this Act^{shall not apply,-}

ML,J Crp 5667 2011

(a) to_ any building belonging to the State Government or the Central Government, or Cantonment Board or any local authority;

¶92

(b)

¶93

renovation.

¶94

Explanation^J:- A building may be said to be substantiallv premiqgs is built ne w i, ,..o.d.r". E-iEE-criteria prescribed for determining the extent of renovation. Explanation-Il:- Date of completion of construction shail be the.date of completion as intimated to the concerned authority or of assessment of proper$r tax, whichever is earlier, and where the premisei harre been constructed in stages the date on which the initial building was completed and an intimation thereof was sent to the concerned _^{authority or was assessedto property} tax, whichever is earlier.

¶95

{c)^{to any building} the rent of which as on the date of commencement of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent .and Eviction) Conrrol (Amendment) a8t, ZOOS, exceeds rupees three thousand and five^'hundred pei month in the areas cove red by the Municipal Corporations in the State and rupees two thousand per month in other areas.,,

¶96

By virtue of the amendment, the building constructed or substantially renovated are exempted from the purview of the Act, if it is below 1 5 years old from the date of completion of construction or renovation. As per the amendment Act, the buildings above 15 years with rent below Rs.3,500/- in the arcas covered by the Municipal Corporations are brought under the purview of the Act and

¶97

¶98

ML,J Crp_5667_201I

¶99

rest of the buildings are excluded from the purview of the Act.

¶100

In the present case, by virtue of the findings in the previous rent control proceedings, the landlord and the tenant relationship was not governed under the Act prior to the amended Act and such relation was governed under the Transfer of Property Act. By rrirtue of the said amendment, the contractual relationship between the parties was brought under the purview of the Act, as the ceiling of monthll,rent is enhanced to Rs.3,5OO/-.

¶101

In the present case, the monthly rent of the scheduled premises was taken as Rs.9OO/-, and on the said claim, the proceedings lor eviction were initiated for the willlul defaulted period prior to the arnended Act. The facts on hand disclose that the default period was also covered even after coming into force the amended Act of 20O5 i.e., for the months from June to August, 2OO5 apart from the delault period covering from October, 1999 to September, 2OO0 and October, 2000 to August, 2005.

¶102

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 1O(2) of the Act and it reads as under;

ML,J Crp 5667 2011

1 I i 1 a I I

"10. Eviction of teaants:-

¶107

(1) . ..

¶108

(2) A lardlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controfler for a direction t. th;;';;;;.' ,, ,h. controtier after giving the ;;;;i"'Lr"o,r.ur. opportunity of showins c ^ause against the application, is satisfied: (i) that the tenant has not pald or tendered the rent due by him rn respect of the buildi within fifteen da s after the of the time hxed in the eement of tenan or in the absence of any such agreement, hv.the last dav of the month next following that for wh cn trre rent is payable; or

¶109

(ii) to (vi) ...

¶110

26' A reading of the above provision would make it crear that if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due in respect of the buitding within 15 days after expiry of time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the randrord or in the absence of such agreement, by the last day of the month next following, it is treated as willful default.

¶111

27 . In the present case, admittedly the rent was payable by l0th of next succeeding month. There was a written registered lease deed, whereunder the conditions of tenaacy were stipulated, and such lease deed was entered prior to the Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005 came into force. Now, the question is whether the grounds which are availabre to the

ML,J Crp_5667 _2011

landlord or the tenant under the contractual tenancy cease

¶117

to operate by virtue of the relationship falling under the Act?

¶118

In this regard, it is apt to refer to Section 1O(3)(d) of the Act and it reads as under:

¶119

"1O. Eviction of tenants:-

¶120

(1) and (2) . ..

¶121

(3) (a) to (c)

¶122

(d) Where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon betu,een the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period."

¶123

A combined reading of Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (d)

¶124

of the Act, it is clear that the Act is not completely encroached upon the contractual relationship between the landlord and the tenant, but such relationship is restricted and held to be invalid. if they are contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act

¶125

In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in N.Motilal v. Faisal Bin Alil, ",herein it has

¶126

been held as under:

¶127

"10. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M/s. Raval & Co. had occasion to consider Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 ol 1960. Section 4 of the said Act^provides for application for fixation of the fair rent for the tenant as wcll as the iandlord. In the majority^judgment speaking through Alagiriswami, J. in^{paragraphs18 and} 19 follou,ing has been laid down:

¶128

rCivilAppeal No 710 of20t0. dared 10.01.2020

¶129

¶130

ML,J Crp_5667 20ll

¶131

The provisions of the Act under consideration show that they a-re to take effect notwithstanding ally contract even during the Subsistence of the contract. We have already refered to the definition of the terms^,la;rdlord, and^'renant' which applies both to subsisting tenancies as well as tenancies which might have comelo an end. We may a.lso refer to the provision in Section Z (21 which lays down that where the fair rent of a building has not been fixed the landlord shall not claim arrf.thing in addition to the agreed rent, thus showing that the-fair rent can be fixed even where there is an agreed rent. That is why we have earlier pointed out that.Ihe various English. decisions which provide for fixation of rent only where the contractual tenancy has come to an end do not apply here. We may also refer to Sub-section I3) of Section 1O which deals with cases where a landlord contractual tenancy if the conditions laid down in Section 1O are satisfied.

¶132

Learned counsei for the appellants has placed leli-an9e^{on the minority judgment dlliveredby Bhagwari,} J. for himself and K.K. Mathew, J. although the minority judgment has held that landlord can make- an application for determination of fair rent only after the deteimination of tenancy and during subsistence of contractual rent no application for fair rent can be given. We are bound by the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench in M/s. Ravai & Co. We further notice that both the learned counsel have referred to seven-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiai vs. yes;dal"Ammal (supra). Seven-Judge Bench had occasion to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in M/s. Raval & Co. (supra| which was quoted with approval. Referring ro majority judgment in M/s. Raval & Co.,s case sevenJudge Bench made following observation:

¶133

Nagiriswami J. at page 635 after having rnade that observation with reference to Bhaiya panjahl,s case has said-"Be that as it may, we are now concerned with the question of hxation of a fair rent.,, In our opinion the majority decision with regard to Section 4 was undoubtedly correct and the minority stretched the law, if we may say so with respect, too fa.r to hold that Sectlon 4 was nor available to the landlord. It should be remembered as we have said above that the field of freedom of contract was en croached uoon to a verv l-q"

¶134

¶135

ML,J Crp_5667 20ll

¶136

extent bv the State Rent Acts. The encroachment was not entirely and wholly one sided. Same encroachment was envisaged in the interest of the landlord also and equity and justice demanded a fair play on the part of the legislature not to completely ignore the helpless situation of many landlords who are also compared to some big tenants sometimes weaker Section of the society. As for example a widow or a minor lets out a family house in a helpless situation to tide over the financial dilliculty and later wants a fair rent to be determined. Again suppose for instalce in a city there is an apprehension of external aggression, severe internal disturbances or spread of epidemics, A man in possession of his house may go to another town letting out his premises to a tenant financially b and of b, nerves at a rate comparatively much lower than the prevailing market rates. l,ater on, on tJ:e normalization of the situation as against the agreed rate of rent be approaches the Building Controller for frxing a fair rent in accordance with a particular State Rent Act. Why should she or he be debarred from doing so. The statute gives him the protection arrd enables the Controller to intervene to fix a fair rent as against the term of contract between the pa-rties. ln a large number of cases it is ttre tenant who gets this protection. But in some as in the case of Raval the landlord needs and gets the protection. But this is not a direct authority on the point of notice."

¶137

A reading of the above judgment would show that ttre Act was enacted for the benefrt of both the landlord and the tenant. The contractua-l relationship has been restricted and substantialiy encroached by the statutory encroachment. However, it u,as not complete and still the contractual relationship governs the parties which are not repugnant to the provisions of the Act.

¶138

The learned counsel for the tenant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Tirath Ram Gupta v.

¶139

¶140

ML,J Crp_5667 201t

¶141

Gurubachan Singhz to contend that the grounds which are available to the landlord for eviction prior to the applicability of the Act cannot be the ground for eviction.

¶142

A close reading of the facts of the said case shows that the tandlord filed eviction petition prior to the said amendment Act came into force on the ground that the tenant has sublet the premises, which was prohibited under the Act. However, the landlord failed to produce the record to show that sublet was prohibited under the lease deed. Under Section log(f) of the Transfer of Prohibition Act, there is no prohibition of subletting. In the absence of contractual terms prohibiting the subletting, the tenalt under the Transfer of property Act is entitled to sublet the property. This means, the tenant failed to establish that the ground for eviction prior to the applicability of the Act was existing to him. In the absence of such ground, the tenant cannot avail the benefit of the Act, whereunder the sublet was prohibited for the acts of the tenant subletting the premises prior to the amendment Act came into force. Therefore, the said judgment cannot heip the petitioner herein.

'?1t9sz1^{r scc ztz}

I l

ML,J Crp_5667 20ll

From the above legal position, it can be safely held that the grounds which are available either the landlord or the tenant under the contractual terms which are not repugn ant to the Act are still available to either of them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Act. Thus, I find no merits in the present revision petition and it is devoid of merits.

¶148

At this stage, the learned counsel for the tenant sought six months time to vacate the scheduled pr-emises and the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same stating that six months time is a long period. ConsiCering the monthly tenancy and the nature of business carried out by the petitioner, this Court feels that three months time is sufficient for vacating the scheduled premises.

¶149

In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted three months time, from the date of receipt of a cop.v of this order, to vacate the scheduled premises, subject to filing of an undertaking by him before the Rent Controller, within l5 days from today, to the effect that he will vacate the scheduled premises on the expiry of three months time.

¶150

ML.J Crp.5661 20il \

¶151

If the undertaling is not filed within the stipulated time, the landlord ls given liberty to execute the decree forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if anY, Pending, shall stand closed.

¶152

SD/-T.KRISHNA K MAR DEPUTY REG //TRUE COPY//

¶153

One Fair Copy to Hon,ble Sri Justice M. L axman SECTION OFFICER (for his Lordships xina perusaii"^{q^,,,G,,,} To,

¶154

1. 1. 1. 1. il!ffi^{#tfi**#ft riikti,-,*:;:-**} 6. The Under Secretary. Unior Affairs, New Dethi. r of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

¶155

The Secretary, A.p. Advoca Hyderabad. tes', Association Library, High court Buildings,

¶156

Two CD Cooies 9. One Spare bopy Ks gbr

¶157

HIGH COURT

¶158

DATED:1210912022

¶159

'---:''.::--
t7,''!.'...1 ,. .: '!t e / ^_ L'A .<br>,t: <" .l
5 v
L) 21 [i:-[ 20[ .LL
-o. .4,
tl
c
(o."o,.,

¶160

ORDER

¶161

CRP.No.5667 of 2011

¶162

Dismissing the C.R.P Without costs.

¶163

a y27->-'-
I

¶164

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶165

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶166

PRESENT

¶167

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶168

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5667 OF 2011

¶169

Between:

¶170

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Electronics, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri J.Venugopala Rao S/o J.Srinivasa Rao, Ri/o. M.No.5-4-423l8/A, Nampally Square, Hyderabad.

¶171

,..PETITIONER

¶172

AND

¶173

Dr. Surender Kumar Grover, S/o. Late Lala Jagannath Peshwari Landlord, R/o. Plot No.449, Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶174

...RESPONOENTS

¶175

Petition Under Article 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia against the orders dated 28.10.2011 made in R.A.No.358 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad preferred against the Order made in R.C.No.194 of 2006 dated 31.08.2010 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶176

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.A.Achuthanand, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent.

¶177

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶178

That the Civil Revision Petition be and hereby is dismissed.

¶179

That the petitioner is granted three months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to vacate the scheduled premises, subject to filing of an undertaking by him before the Rent Controller, within 15 days from today, to the effect that he will vacate the scheduled premises on the expiry of three months time. lf the undertaking is not filed within

¶180

the stipulated time the landlord is given liberty to execute the decree forthwith,

¶181