Dismissed

Iqbal Hussain v. B.Appa Rao

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022SA/340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Second Appeal challenged the confirmation of a lower court decree for eviction. The High Court held that a subsequent transferee acquires the title subject to the original lease terms, but an unregistered undertaking by the original landlord did not bind the new owner or modify the lease. The appeal was dismissed, and the court granted three months to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Tenants granted three months to vacate the premises upon filing an undertaking to the trial court.

Iqbal Hussain Vs B.Appa Rao — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT fOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO: 340 OF 2022

¶6

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgement and^{Decree made} in A.S. No. 153 ot 2019 Dated 05-08-2022 on the file of the Court of the Chief^Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Preferred against the^judgement and^{Decree in OC.No.} 518 of 2013, Dated 03-07-2019 On the file of the Court of the I^{Senior Civil Judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

lqbal Hussain, (Since died^per L.Rs.)

¶9

Fatima Begum, (Since died^per L.Rs.)

¶10

Yasmeenunnisa, W/o.M.A. Wadood, D/o. Late lqbal Hussain

¶11

Mohd. Adil Hussain, S/o. Late lqbal Hussain

¶12

Afishaan Parveen, W/o. Akram All Khan, Dio. Late lqbal^Hussain

¶13

[/d. lsmail Hussain, S/o. Late lqbal Hussain

¶14

Arshia Farheen, W/o. Mir Junaid Ali.

¶15

Alfiya Amreen, D/o. Late Iqbal Hussain,

¶16

(Appellant Nos.3, 5 to B are Represented by their G.P.A. i.e., Appellant^No.4)

¶17

.APPELLANTS/APPLLEANTS/DE^{FEN DANTS}

¶18

AND

¶19

B. Appa Rao, S/o. B.Channappa,^{Aged about60 years,occ.Business,R/o.} H.No.21 -7-686/C, Gansi^{Bazat, Hyderabad.}

¶20

... RESPON DENT/RESPON^{DENT/PLAI NTIF F}

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. C HARI PREETH,ADVOCATE}

¶22

counsel for the^{Respondents:sRl. suNll B GANU, ADVOCATE}

¶23

The Court delivered the^{following: JUDGEMENT}

? I E I

I i I r I i I I j

-7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶29

SECO APPEAL No.340 OF 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

1.^'fhe present appeal^{has been directed against judgment and decree} dated 05.08.2022 passed in A.S.No.153^{of 2019 by ChiefJudge, City} Civil Court, Hyderabad,^{whereinand whereby the judgmentanddecree} dt.03.07.2019^passed in^{O.S.No.5t8 of 2013 by the I-SeniorCivil Judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad,^{was confirmed. The saidsuit was filed by} the respondent herein for eviction ol^{the appellants and said suit was} partly allowed. In the appeal, it^{was confirmed.}

¶32

The present second appeal is^{at the instance of tenants.For} convenience, the ranks of the parties hereinafter^{referred to as landlord} and tenants.

¶33

The case of the landlord is that he is the absolutely owner of the suit mulgi by virtue of purchase under Ex.Al document from the original landlord. After purchase, the tenants paid rent for some time. Thereafter, tenants have not been paying the rent. Therefore, Quit Notice was issued under Ex.A2 terminating the tenancy. When tcnants issued reply under Ex.A4 stating that they had no knou,ledge about the transaction between the original landlord and thc prescnt landlord and, they have not paid any

¶34

¶35

ML,J

¶36

SA No.34O^{of 2O22} rent to the present landlord as claimed by the present^landlord. Thereafter, the landlord filed the^{present suit} for eviction.

¶37

The case of the tenants is that originally, the vendor^{of the present} landlord was the landlord of the tenants.^{Tl-reywere inducted into} tendency in the year 1984^{and the tenancy was on monthlybasis.} Subsequentty, the landlord^{having received part of money, executedan} undertaking dated 05.03.1986^under Ex.Bl^{stating that in the event of} sale of property to 3'd^{parties, first priority would be given to the tenants} and without complying^{such undertaking, the presentsale transactionwas} effected in favour of the^{plaintifVlandlord.According to them, there is no} jural relationship between present landlord and tenants. Therefore, according to them, the plaintiff^{is not entitled for eviction of them.}

¶38

Basing on the above^pleadings, the^{primaryCourt framedthe} following issues:

¶39

Whether the^{plaintiff is entitledto seekevictionof the} defendants as^{prayed for?}

¶40

Whether^{the plaintiff is entittedfor recoveryof alrears of rents} as prayed^for?

¶41

To what^reliel?

¶42

¶43

ML,J

¶44

SA No.34O of2022 6 In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.Al to ,{6. On behalf of defendants, DW.l was examined and got marked Ex.Bl to 87.

¶45

Both the Courts below found that there is valid transfer of title and the defence raised by the tenants was not accepted. Consequently, the suit was decreed and in the appeal, it was confirmed. Hence, the present second appeal.

¶46

The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants/tenants is that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the obligation of the original landlord under Ex.Bl whereunder he undertook to give first option to the tenants in the event of sale of suit property and disregarding the same, original landlord sold the property to the present landlord. According to him, there is no landlord and tenant relationship so as to terminate the contract of tenancy.^'fherefore, these findings suffer from perversity and gives rise to substantial question of Law.

¶47

9- Admittedly, in the present case Ex.Bl is not a contemporaneous to the original lease transaction between the original landlord and renants and there is no obligation under the original lease transaction to the effect that original landlord is bound by the terms whereunder he undertook to give first priority to the tenants in ,r',-.-.u"nr ol'sale of property to third

ML,J

parties

parties subsequenr transacrion is in,Jependenr of *JlTffi :fr rZZ'-Z transaction.

¶52

I, this regard, it is rerevant to refer section r09 of Tiansfer of PropertyAct which as follows:

¶53

"r09. Rights of ressor,s transferee:_ If the lessor transfers the propefty l:T"d, :r any part_rhereoq q. * ion oa his interesr therein, Lhe trans[er.., ,rn ihe absence of a "on,iu., to the contrary. shall posses.l ff ttre rights, and, if the rrr."" ," elects, be subjeci to all the liabilities of the lessor ,, i"- rl transferred so rong ur t " i, ir,. owner of it; but rnjlllrll#, ffil by reason onry oisu"h t.unrf., ""ur"-io i" .rr:, ro any of the Iiabilities imposed ,pon f,i* b;, the f",'-rnfJss the lessee elects to treat,n",llTree.as.the p€rson liabre io ti* providea that the transferee is not entitred to arrears of rent aue uerore the transfer, and rhar, if rhe ressee, nor having *;;;;;ierieve rhat such transfer has been *uA",'puy, ..n, to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liabre to pay such rent over.again to the ,*nrr"."". The ressor, the transferee and the ressee may detennin" t ut proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the .r."r. ir puyuor" ,n respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disa!.."1r", determination may be made by any courr rravinglurrrii"ii", i" entertain a suit for the possession oithe property leased.,,

¶54

I l ' A reading of the above provision makes it crear that the subsequent transferee from the ressor is bound by the original terms and conditions entered in between lessor and lessee. Admittedly, in the present case the original lease does not obligate the landlord to give priority to the tenants in case he sells the property. The Ex.B r is not part of lease terms. Therefore, it is not binding on the present landlord.

ML,J

iI I

I n \

SA No'34O^{of 2O22} |2,ThecontentionofleamedCounselforappellants/tenantsisthat Ex.BlhastobereadaSamodificationoforiginalleaseterms.According tohim,newtermunderEx.Blbindsthesubsequenttransferee.These contentions^{cannotbe accepted for the reasonthat Ex'81 is not a} registereddocumentandinordertorelyupontermsofthemodified lease,ifany,itshouldbearegisteredone.Inthepresentcase,itisnota registereddocument,andtheleasedeediscompulsorilyregisterable document.^{Therefore that document cannotbe relied upon'}

¶60

13.Further,thetenantstilldate,havenotfiledanyindependentsuitfor specificperformancetoenforcethetermsunderEx.Bl.LearnedCounsel for the^{tenants has stated} lha!^{they have no knowledge about the} transaction.^{Learned counselfor respondent/landlord stated that the} tenants^{have filed independentsuit against the original landlord andthe} originallandlordinthepleadingspleadedregardingthesaleofsuit propertytothepresentlandlord,whichisEx.A6.Thismeansthetenants are aware^{of creation of transactionmuch prior to the institutionof the} presentsuit.EvenafterreceiptofSummons,tenantscouldhavetaken Stepstoenforcethecontract,ifany,underEx.Bl.Forthelast9years, they have not^{resorted to enforcesuch contract.Therefore, SuCh StephaS} become redundant */

ML,J

SA No.340 of 2022 It is no one,s case that there is defbcti ve notice under Section lOi r of Transfer of property Act. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶66

15' The Learned counser for the appe,ants/tenants prayec that six months time may be granted to the appelrants to vacate the premises since they have been in possession since lgg4. On the contrary the Leamed counsel for the Landlord opposed by contending that six months period is a long one' considering that the arguments of rearned counser for tenants' I feel that ttu'ee months period is sufficient for vacating the premises' such three months time is granted subject to the tenanh firing an undertaking before the t.iar court to vacate the premises within three months from the date of this jirdgment and such r-rndertaking has to be filed within 15 days fiom the ciate of this judgment; fuiling which, the landlord is at riberty to proceed with the execurion proceedings.

¶67

16' with the above obse.ations, the second appear is dismissed. There shalr be no order as to costs' As a sequer, pending nrisceralleous applications, if any, shall stand closecl.

¶68

¶69

Sd/. B. S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶70

To,

¶71

SECTION OFFICER

¶72

The Chiet Judge, Crty CivitCourt, Hyderabad

¶73

The First senior^{civit Judge,city civil court, Hyderabad}

¶74

¶75

I I / i i

¶76

One^{CC to SRI' C HARI PREETHAdvocate TOPUCI}

¶77

¶78

One^{CC to Mr' SUNIL B GANUAdvocate IOPUCI}

¶79

Two^{CD CoPies}

?i".{^-

F.n

: ,I t I !

HIGH^COURT

:, .

ML,^J

DATED:^191091?:022

ORDER

SA.No.340 of 2022

STATG
/
,q
r$11 11
13 l[\ .+'
fo)
d,
-i(
u'i.t,i ."'

¶91

Dismissing the Second Appeal At the admission stage Without costs.

¶92

?rt&" o':3 '

Iqbal Hussain v. B.Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Hussain v. B.Appa Rao

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

Khaja Naseeruddin, Vs Syed Abdul Rab , Arshad Mehta

Addl. Asst. Engineer Vs Peddi Mallakka

Allam Mukundam Vs Vinod Chary (Died) per LRs and 3 others

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) Vs Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao