Dismissed

P. Naresh Singh v. V.S. Prasada Rao

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022SA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the second appeal filed by tenants challenging an eviction decree. The Court held that the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff's wife created the tenancy, thereby upholding the lower courts' finding of a valid landlord-tenant relationship. The Court granted 3 months as reasonable time to vacate upon execution of an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the second appeal; Order for eviction of appellants allowed; 3 months time granted for vacating premises.

P. Naresh Singh Vs V.S. Prasada Rao — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO: 108 OF 2022

¶8

Appeal under section^'100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 1511212021 made in A.S. No. 134 of 2017 on the file of Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad Preferred against the Decreeⁱⁿ O.S.No.1034 12O14 daled 1811212017 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge at City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

P. Naresh Singh, S/o Late Nandram Singh Aged 45 years Occ. Business Rl/o.H.No,'1-1-407, Sitarambagh, Dattatreya Phad, Hyderabad. 2. Heralal Singh, S/o Late Dhanraj Singh Aged 32 years Occ Employee Fl/o 12-2-17,8.134 Fast food center Ground Floor, SBI Colony, Guddimalkapur, Hvderabad

¶11

...A,'ELLANT'/A''ELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

V.S. Prasada Rao, S/o V. Satyanbarayana Aged 66 years Occ Retired employee No 12-2-1718.134 Fast food center Ground Floor,SBI Colony, Guddimalkapur' Hvderabad

¶14

...RES'.NDENT

¶15

SAMP/IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the^judgment and decree of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.NO.103412014 as confirmed by the Honourable Appellate lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in AS.No.13/2017 Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. M.R.S.SRINIVAS

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

)

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN SECOND APPEAL No: 1O8 of 2o22

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The present Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.L2.2O21 passed in A.S.No. 134 of 2Ol7 by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the^judgment and decree dated l8.OL.2Ol7 passed in O.S.No.1034 of 20 14 passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was confirmed. The said suit was filed lor eviction of appellants herein from the suit premises, and for mesne profits and the sarne was decreed. Aggrieved by the sarne, defendants preferred first appeal and in the first appeal a1so, the finding of the Trial Court was confirmed.

¶22

The present second appeal is at the instance of defendants. For convenience, the ranks of the parties as they were referred in the suit, is maintained.

¶23

The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that, he is the owner of 2 mulgies bearing No. l2-2417 lB136, admeasuring 36O Square Feet, situated at

¶24

¶25

2 ML,J SA No. lO8 of 2022

¶26

Guddimalkapur, SBI Colony, Hyderabad. Originaliy, he let out one mulgi consisting of 2OO Square Feet on 23.O2.2O7O on the initial monthly rent of Rs.3,600/- excluding the electricity consumption charges. Subsequently, he let out another mulgi admeasuring 160 Square Feet of the same premises for extension of business of the defendants. The monthly rent agreed for two shops was Rs. 18,000/- i.e. each mulgi @ Rs.9,000 /- per month. The defendants had not been paying the rent from March 2OL4. ln the said circumstances, the present suit has been filed.

¶27

The case of the defendalts is that they admit the ownership of plaintiff. However, they claim that the suit premises were let out by the wife of the plaintiff and there is no^jural relationship of landlord arrd tenant in between the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants admit their possession as tenant and they also admit the initial rent and subsequent letting out another premise for extension of their business. According to them, the rent for the two mulgies was Rs. 9,OOO|-. They denied that each mulgi carry rent of Rs. 9,000/-. They also denied the default of

¶28

¶29

ML,J SA No. 1 O8 of 2O22

¶30

rent as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶31

On the basis of the above pleadings, the primary Court framed the following issues:

¶32

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of defendants from the suit schedule property as prayed for?

¶33

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent from March 2014 from the defendants @ Rs.18,OOO / - per month as prayed for?

¶34

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages from the defendants @ Rs.30,000/- per month till delivery of possession as prayed for?

¶35

To what relieP

¶36

In support of his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW. 1 and relied upon Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW. 1 and relied upon Ex.Bl to 89.

¶37

Both the Courts found that the plaintiff is the landlord who let out the premises to the defendants and ordered eviction apart from granting arrears of rent and damages Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed appeal and the

¶38

ML,J SA No. lO8 of 2022

¶39

First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the appeilants/defendants contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidentiar5r burden in terms of Section 104 of Indial Evidence Act, and also failed to consider the initial burden to prove the jural relationship. According to him, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of jural relationship between plaintiff and defendants. This evidence was not properly appreciated in decreeing the suit. Therefore, according to him, the said finding suffers from perversity and gives rise to the substantial question of law.

¶41

On the contra,q/, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that both the Courts have rightly found that the plaintiff discharged the evidentiary burden of proving the jural relationship ald such findings do not suffer from any perversity. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶42

In this regard, Section lO4 of Evidence Act, is appropriate to refer, *friof, reads as under:

¶43

ML,J SA No. 108 of 2022

¶44

¶45

" l 04- Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible. - The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence."

¶46

A close reading of the above provision would show that

¶47

in order to give any evidence of any other fact, party has to prove the prior fact.

¶48

In the present case, the plaintiff has to prove the^jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and if he fails to prove the same, the suit must fail. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the property which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the defendants are tenants of the premises. Now the question is, whether the plaintiff has transferred the right of enjoyment to defendants or the wife of the plaintiff transferred such right of enjoyment. When the holder of title has right of enjoyment presumption is he transferred such enjoyment unless the contrar5r is proved.

¶49

In the present case, the defendants are asserting that the right of enjoyment was transferred by the wife of the plaintiff and not the plaintiff even though he was owner. It

¶50

6 ML,J SA No. 108 of 2022

¶51

is for the defendants to prove that the wife of plaintiff was having right of enjoyment so that she can transfer the right of enjoyment to the defendants so as to create^jural relationship.

¶52

In the present case, except asserting that the plaintiffs wife has tralsferred the right of enjoyment, the defendalts have not adduced any evidence to show that wife of the plaintiff was holding right of enjoyment. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be contended that wife of the plaintiff created the tenancy. Therefore, I do not lind any perversity in the judgments of both the Courts in ordering the eviction since there is no dispute touching notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this case.

¶53

Learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that defendants have been running the commercial business and their livelihood is depending upon the said business only and seeks six months time to vacate the premises. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the same by contending that \

¶54

ML,J SA No. I 08 of 2O22

¶55

¶56

defendants had been in enjoyment of property for more than 12 years and the time claimed by the defendants is long time.

¶57

Considering the contention of both parties, this Court feels that 3 months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order is^just and reasonable in the set of facts to vacate the premises by the defendants. Such grant of time is subject to defendants executing an undertaking within 15 days from the date of this order before the trial Court undertaking to vacate the premises within 3 months. If such undertaking is given, the defendants are entitled for 3 months time for vacating the suit premises. Otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed with execution.

¶58

Accordingly, this Appea-l is dismissed confirming the findings ofboth the courts. No costs.

¶59

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha-ll stand close d.

¶60

¶61

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINI REGISTRAR , \ ^//TRUE COPY// _",,"⁽ \\

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

¶64

'1 . The lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad.

¶65

The XVll Addl. SeniorCivil^{Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad}

¶66

One CC to SRl. J.C.FRANCIS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. M.R.S,SRINIVAS,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CD Copies

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/0912022

JUDGMENT

SA.No.108 of 2022

1 HE S?4 ,6
,<br>q
oJ
2 4 tlAB 2023
*
f/i::i:, r ,1 .;/

¶74

DISMISSING OF THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS. +.r{f4 \c?.;{pF

P. Naresh Singh v. V.S. Prasada Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Naresh Singh v. V.S. Prasada Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Dharani Narsimlu Vs Mangalaram Ramaiah(Died) and Another

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, Vs Hemendra v.Shah

Yeru Mallamma Vs Deva Vanamala and 2 others