THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1868 OF 2013 Dated:14-07-2014 Between:
Abdul Rahman Qadri ... PETITIONER AND Mohd. Firasat Ali Khan .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1868 OF 2013 ORDER:
The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in respect of mulgi bearing No. 16-2-4/5, Saidabad, Hyderabad. The respondent filed R.C No. 3 of 2005 before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner. The details of the relationship that existed between the parties vis-à-vis the premises was furnished. The principal ground urged by the respondent was, that the petitioner committed default in payment of the rents.
The petitioner opposed the R.C by raising a dispute as to the jural relationship between him and the respondent. The allegation as to default in payment of rents was also denied. Through order dated 03-10-2008, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the R.C. The respondent filed R.A No. 170 of 2008 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The R.A was allowed on 16-11-2010 directing eviction of the petitioner. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
The only ground on which the R.C was filed was that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents. The petitioner disputed the very title of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller agreed with this contention and dismissed the R.C. It is not a case where the petitioner disputed the very tenancy. According to him, he remained the tenant of the premises till an agreement of sale was executed by the respondent in August, 1995 and ever since then, he is not under an obligation to pay the rents. The learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that the petitioner filed O.S No. 1642 of 2004 in the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance and the dismissal thereof. However, he took the view that the respondent is entitled to adjust the amount covered by the agreement of sale. Such an approach is erroneous. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter by holding that once the petitioner failed to prove the ground of absence of title in the respondent, that itself becomes a ground for eviction. The petitioner cannot blow hot and cold and refuse to pay the rent even after the suit for specific performance was dismissed. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner is granted three months time from 01-08-2014 to vacate the premises on filing an undertaking that he would put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14th July, 2014 ks