Dismissed

Yakub Sharif , Nawab v. Mirza Tafazzal Baig , Tabbu Seth

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023CRP/3103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a Civil Revision Petition challenging an eviction order. Finding no error in the lower courts determination of willful default in rent and noting the statutory bar on reappreciating evidence, the Court dismissed the revision but adjourned possession to eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted eight weeks time to vacate premises from date of order; revision otherwise dismissed.

Yakub Sharif , Nawab Vs Mirza Tafazzal Baig , Tabbu Seth — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[²⁵⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:310 30F 2022

¶7

civil Revision Petition under Arlicre 22 of relangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Controt Act, 1960 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.10 2022 passed in RCA No. g1 of 2o1g on the file of the court of the Additionar chief Judge, city smafl causes court at Hyderabad,

¶8

Between

¶9

Yakub Sharif @ Nawab, S/o Ahmed Sharif, aged about 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o H No 8-1-523t244tc. rori Cnowii, uyO;r;"b;;.----'--

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Mtrza T atazz:t Baig @ Tabbu Seth. S/o Mtza Raza Baig, aged about 55 years, Occ. Business R/o H No.8-2_75212, ahori Nagiriijinjara nitts,'Hyderabad

¶13

2 M-ohammed Siraj Uddin. S/o Mohammed Shahab Uddin, aged about 40 years. occ Business, R/o H No 2_2_18yaOlAC, Ramiii;h;, A,o",pet Hv<i:";'oji^{'"" "} ' ...-€r[3ft'dEt?3

¶14

lA NO: I OF 2022

¶15

Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit-fired in support of the petitibn, i1""iifn cor.t may be preased to stay execution of eviction order in RC No.40 0f 201s-on the fle 6t tne t:r-no.iiti..i Rent Controller, City Small Causes at ttyderabaJ.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A NAJEEB KHAN

¶17

counset for the Responoentffilono tFTEQAR ALt

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶20

C.R P No.3103 of2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel for pe titioner Mr. A Najeeb Khan and learned counsel for respondents Sri Mohd Ifteqor Ali.

¶23

It is not- in dispute thar petitioner herein is tenant of suit schedule property. According to petitioner, he was paying rent to the original landlord till his death and thereafter to his wife but he stopped paying rent from June 2014. Sol'e defence taken by the petitioner is that second respondent ehtered into agreement of sale to purchase the suit schedule propcrq/ and he started demanding pavment of rent to him, therclorc he stopped paying rent. It is also not in dispute that rent is not paid to second respondent. Thus, admittedly after June 2074, no rent was paid. Further, it cannot be a concern of petitioner to involve in interse disputes, if any, between the original owner and the alleged agrecment of sa-te deed holder and it is for them to sort out their interse disputes. Petitioner being a tenant of the original owner, after his death, his legal heirs are entitled to receive rent.

¶24

Having considered the matter at length, the First Additional Rent Controller by order dated 30.3.2O19 in RC No.40 of 20ls held that the petitioner hercin committed willtul default in payment of rents in respect of schcdule mulgi. Holding so, allowed Rent Case with costs and directecl 1he petitioner herein to vacate the

¶25

¶26

petition schedule mulgi and handover the physical possession rvithin two months from the date of order.

¶27

Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred RCA No. 81 of 2019 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. On further consideration of the matter independently and having analysed the evidence brought on record, the appetlate Court held that even after receiving the attunement of the tenancy letter EX.P.6 petitioner herein failed to pay rent to the petitioner and committed willful default in payment of rent by taking due advantage of agreement of sale entered by second respondent, therefore concluded that first respondcnt/ petitioner herein committed willful default in payment of rent.

¶28

Thus, successively the Rent Controller and the Appellate court have recorded a finding that petitioner willfully defaulted in payment of rent.

¶29

Though learned counsel for petitioner sought to urge that said finding is not correct, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit and re-appreciate the evidence on record and record a different frnding than the one arrived at by the trial court and Iower appellate Court.

¶30

Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the order under revision warranting interference. At this stage, rearned counsel for petitioner prayed to grant some time to petitioner to vacate and handover the suit premises.

¶31

Having regard to the dircctions issued by both the Courts below, petitioncr is granted eight t.q6ks time from today to vacate and handovcr peacefui possession of the subject^premises to hrst respondent.

¶32

Subject to above, revision stands dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if an1'^pending stand closed.

¶33

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Chief Judge. City Small Causes Court at^Hyderabad

¶38

One CC to SRI A NAJEEB KHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to SRI MOHD IFTEQAR ALI, Advocate [OPUCI

¶40

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

DATED:13/04/2023

ORDER

.ri ;,,E S T/rr
/; !.;a ''.,.
li:l 2[ [?ff ?I1?3
\t tt.
<br>

¶48

CRP.No.3103 of 2022

¶49

CRP DISMISSED

¶50

@414
*'o
2\4\a3

Yakub Sharif , Nawab v. Mirza Tafazzal Baig , Tabbu Seth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakub Sharif , Nawab v. Mirza Tafazzal Baig , Tabbu Seth

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

M/s. Deccan Wine House and Amrit Bar and Restaurant,Partnership firm Vs Sri Radhakrishna and 2 others

Dr. Rabindranath C Vs Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Smt. Bano Begum Vs Sri S. Praveen Kumar

Mr. Mohd Faheemuddin Vs Mr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman

Mr. Mumtaz Shareef Vs Syed Shafiullah

Chowrala Santosh Kumar and 4 Others Vs Akula Shobha Rani and 10 Others