Dismissed

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, v. Hemendra v.Shah

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022CRP/5946/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application under Section 9(3) of the Buildings Act. The court held that the petitioner, having failed to establish tenancy rights in prior proceedings, could not maintain the current application.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, Vs Hemendra v.Shah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32{6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5946^{OF 2007}

¶7

Petition under Section 22 A.P. Buildings^{(Lease, Rent and Eviction)} Control Act 1960 against the^{order dated19-07-2007passed in R.A.No. 124 of} 2005 on the file of the Court of the^{Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,} Hyderabad^preferred against the order of^{the Court of the ll AdditionalRent} Controller, Hyderabad, dated25-04-2005^{in R.C.No.393of 2001}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri.Rathan Prakash Paul, S/o. Late Sri^{E.C. Paul,}

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.1'PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Hemendra V.Shah, S/o. Late Sri^{VallabhdasShah,}

¶13

...RESPONDENT NO.1I APPELLANT' RESPONDENT NO.2

¶14

Raja Chathurbhujdas Goverdhandas^{& Sons, 4-3-162, SultanBazar,} Hyderabad.

¶15

(set aside the order dated 14-08-2014 by restoring the^{revision petition} against R2 as^per Court Order dated^{30-03-2022in l.A.No.S/l8)}

¶16

.3.^{Smt. N.Andalamma,Wo. Sri N.Narasimharao,}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANJARI^{S GANU}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^{Y SRINIVASA MURTHY} gRl -[ 5. AhrAr{D

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3:SRI C. RAGHU}

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: NONE^APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMIIN

¶24

CM REVISION PETITION No.5946 of 2O(t7

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The prese 11. Crivil Revision Petition is directt:,1 against^the order dated 19O7.:2OO7 passed in R.A.No.l'24 ol11005^{by the} Chief Judge, Ci y Small Causes Court, Hyderabad,^{'"rrh,:reinand} whereby, the or der dated 25.O4.2005^passe(l in^{F: C.l'1o.393 of} 2001 by the I A<lditional Rent Controller,^{Hy: trrabad, was} reversed and co nsequently, the application filed^b I^{the Revision} Petitioner I'rerei r under Section 9 of The Telang'lr: a Buildings (Lease, Rent anrI Eviction) Control Act, 196O, (in sh,rrt "Act") was dismissed. Agi ir-rsl. the said order, the present^(l.vil Revision Petition has bee^-r filed.

¶27

The case r f the petitioner is that, originally l/ r,tjor Prakash Rao was the t,,'nant o[ residential premises t.lo. .. 1-6- 184, Vallabhdas Buil 1ings, Nampal1y, Hyderabad, and :L ter his death his wife Floren< e Prakash Rao continued to be 1( rlar t till her death, i.e., May 1999. The petitioner herein was -tre grandson of Prakash Rao . .r:., lirst rvife's daughter's son

¶28

2-A Further cz se of the petitioner was that, origrnalll the first respondent was the landlord and the Prakash Rao rvas tenant of

¶29

2 ML,J CRP No.5946 of 2007

¶30

the first respondent and they continued to pay rent to the l"t respondent till March 1999. Meanwhile, the wife of the Prakash Rao i.e., Florence has received a notice from the respondent No.2 claiming that in a partition arnong the first respondent and his legal heirs, the petition iroperty fell to his share and he demanded rent. Subsequently, Mrs. Florence forwarded the rent to hrst respondent through the banker's cheque and that was refused by the hrst respondent. While she was contemplating appropriate proceedings, she died on 23.05.1999.

¶31

Subsequently, the petitioner also sent rent to frst respondent through money orders and banker's cheques for the months from April, 1999 to June, 1999 and the same was refused by the first respondent. In the said circumstances, he Iiled an application under section 8(5) of the Act before the III Additional Rent Controller in R.C.No.559 of 1999 and the Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence placed by the respondent Nos. I and 2 parties, found that the application under section 8(5) of the Act was inappropriate in the facts and circumstances and the evidence, and opined that the application ought to have been filed under Section 9(3) of Rent Control Act, 1960. He also held that the petitioner failed to establish that he

¶32

ML,J C it No 5946 of2007

¶33

is a tenalt of ttre petition mentioned mulgie. Ag1;:iei ed b1, the same, the petit. oner preferred R.A.No.260 of 2O() I .

¶34

3-A. While pe nding above appeai, the present rpplication is filed under se,:tion 9(3) of the Rent Contr-ol Ac1, 1960. The present applica ti()n is filed on the ground tlrat tlie,re is a bona fide dispute wi ,tr regard to title of the land lord i : th e light of notice received fron-r respondent Nos.2 & 3 assertir-rg that each of them have ritle. Therefore, the present irpplir:a .ion is filed. The responden t No.2 alone contested thr, matt:r by filing counter. He t as set up a plea that he is the :,u,ner of the petition mentio rt:d property and the petitioner ir; ,r trespasser and he is not eL tenant and he is not entitled r_o make an application und :r' S,:ction 9 of the Rent Control Act.

¶35

The petiti< ner to support his case, got (,xam rr:d pWs I to 4 and reiief up( n trx-A1 to Ex-A12. The 2"d r.esporL,:lent himself examined as R.[ 1 .

¶36

The Rent C)ontroller having considere(l the cviclence on record allowed h e application and permitted the ; retitioner to deposit the befo'e ttre Rent Controller, treating hinr .s ;t tenant. Aggrieved by thr sarne, the 2"a respondent prr:ferr.rr[ th,:2ppsa]. The Firsl_ Appcl.iant Court reversed the findi:rgrs of Rent

¶37

4 . ML,J CRP No-5946 of 2007

¶38

Controller and consequently, application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision.

¶39

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that both the Courts have not taken into consideration Exs.A-7 and A-8 depositions pertaining to the evidence given in R.C.No.262 of 1980 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller. The present revision petitioner was examined as RW. 1 and he had specifically deposed to the fact that he was living with the Florence in the suit premises. Therefore, if this evidence had been considered, the finding that he is not a tenant would not have been made by the both Courts. According to her, the ftndings suffer from perversity

¶40

The Learned senior Counsel representing the contesting respondent contended that as per Ex-A10, the order in R.C.No.559 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller shows that the Court already gave a finding that the petitioner is not a tenant in the application filed under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act, 1960 and such finding was challenged in the appeal and the First Appellate Court also conhrmed such finding. Therefore, the same issue cannot be

¶41

) , ML,.I CI I' No.:i946 of 2007

¶42

I ,l

¶43

agitated in a s:parate proceedings taken up l)], -he petitioner when the previ( u s l)roceedings attained finality.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the petitioner, :Lrirr ing asa successor to te r:1nr, has filed an application und,lr Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act, 1960 before the III^{AirLitir>nalRent} Controller in R C:.No.559 of 1999. It is also not irL dis,pute that the said applic et,ion was dismissed holding that tlre petitioner had failed to prr,,e that he is tenant and also gave zr lirrding that even if he is ter ant the application filed under SectL,:rn l3(5) of the Rent Control Ar:t in the facts and circumstances,^rriLs rrot proper and opined that the application ought to have becn filed under Section 9 of the Ilent Control Act, 1960.

¶45

The abov : orders were challenged in the ll.,4.l\o.260 of 2O01 on the fik <>f the Additional Chief Judge, CitS Simzrll Causes Court, Hyderat ad. The said appeal was dismisr;:C confirming the finding rr corded by the Rent Controller hol<1ing that petitioner is nct a tenant. Further observed that ir.r tlre light of the subsequent proceedings taken up by the petitic rrer by vvay of application unr er section 9(3) of Rent Control Act tnrl allowing of such applica.ir>n. the relief claimed in the appeal irlso becomes infructuous. <sup>y'l-re:-r there is clear cut finding thzrr t.he petitioner

¶46

6 . ML,J cRP No.5946 of 2od7

¶47

is not a tenant, which is also confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the previous proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act, the petitioner cannot maintain present application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act even on the basis of observation made by the Rent Controller in the previous proceedings.

¶48

The condition precedent for making an application, he must have qualification of tenant and when the Court held that he has not established the tenancy rights by establishing jural relationship, he cannot make fresh application under section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act basing on the observation. The First Appellate Court rightly taken note of such a fact and rightly reversed such a frnding of the Rent Controller and such findings requires no interference by this Court

¶49

1 1. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

SdT-G.SIR,EESHA

¶52

¶53

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/' qD

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

1 The Chief Judge, City^{Small Causes Court, Hyderabad} 2 The ll Additional Rent^{Controller,Hyderabad} 3 One CC to Sri Manjari^{S Ganu' Advocate} IOPUC] - 4 One CC to Sri Y Srinivasa^{MurthyAdvocate} [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri C. Raghu,^Advocate [OPUC] 6plp? Two CD onc cc+o Copiessrf TS- tulai.lD/ A&ff"tt (or4

HIGH COUR..

DATED:26101)12022

ORDER

?':::"
i
s
$
.3
-a:.

CRP.No.594(i of 2007

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT C()STS

¶66

6.,oq 6VU"---.-

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, v. Hemendra v.Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, v. Hemendra v.Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Qamereuddin Ansari Vs Mansula Narsimlu

Panaganti Rajeswar Rao Vs Maram Chenna Krishna Reddy

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., Vs Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another

P. Naresh Singh Vs V.S. Prasada Rao

Dharani Narsimlu Vs Mangalaram Ramaiah(Died) and Another

Yeru Mallamma Vs Deva Vanamala and 2 others