THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3720 OF 2012 Dated:14-11-2014
Between
M/s. Agarwal Bros rep., by its Proprietor Sri Jitender Agarwal, S/o. Sri Bajranglal, aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o.carrying on business in Mulgi Nos.2-2-170&2-2-171, Opp: Jamia Masjid, Subhash Road, Secunderabad, A.P ... PETITIONER AND Smt. Savithri Bai .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3720 OF 2012 ORDER:
This revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) is filed against the order dated 12-06-2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A No. 213 of 2010.
The petitioner is a firm, and tenant in respect of premises bearing No.2-2-170 and 171, Subhash Road, Secunderabad. The respondent filed R.C No. 193 of 2006 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was pleaded that her sons and grandsons are carrying out business in rented premises and that they intend to set up cloth business, in the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. She pleaded that another mulgi bearing No.2-2-172 owned by her is under the occupation of a tenant by name M/s. Babumian and brothers and that she has no other non-residential premises for the establishment of business of her sons and grand children. She has also invoked the ground under Section 10-C of the Act which enables a widow to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises owned by her.
The petitioner filed a counter feigning ignorance about the respondent. The existence of any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and themselves, was denied. According to them, the premises were obtained from one Sri Bahadarmal Ramchander in 1980 at the rent of Rs.250/- per month and not from the respondent and at no point of time, the respondent informed them about her acquiring rights over the property. It was further pleaded that the original landlord did not inform them of any transfer of ownership, much less attornment of tenancy at any point of time. The plea as to the bonafide requirement was denied. It was asserted that the respondent, her children and grand children have many other premises.
The trial Court dismissed the R.C through order dated 31- 05-2010. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed R.A No.213 of 2010 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through order dated 12-06- 2010. Hence this revision.
Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground pleaded by the respondent for eviction from the premises was, one of bonafide requirement and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that such requirement does not exist at all. He further submits that except that the petitioner claimed ignorance about the manner in which the respondent derived title to the property, it did not dispute the title of the respondent as such and still, the lower appellate Court answered that point against the petitioner and allowed the R.A. He contends that the plea of bonafide requirement was not at all established.
Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in the counter filed in the R.C itself, the petitioner flatly denied the title of the respondent vis-à- vis schedule property so much so, that a point had to be framed on it. He submits that the plea of bonafide requirement was clearly established and still, the Rent Controller did not order eviction and that the lower appellate Court granted the relief in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the plea referable to Section 10-C of the Act was undeniable and there is no way, that the petitioner can oppose the eviction.
The respondent filed the R.C for eviction of the petitioner by pleading the ground of bonafide requirement as well as the one under Section 10-C of the Act, in her capacity as a widow. In its counter, the petitioner opposed all the contentions raised by the respondent. Taking the pleadings before him into account, the learned Rent Controller framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is bonafide?
2. Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondent from the Petition Schedule Premises and the ground of self occupation that the petitioners grand son for conduction their business?
4. Whether petitioner is entitled eviction by invoking Sec.10-C of Rent Control Act?
5. To what relief?”
On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-28 were filed. On behalf of the petitioner, RW 1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-22 were filed. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the R.C mainly on the basis of the answer to the first point, which was given in favour of the petitioner. Once it was held that the respondent is not the owner of the premises, rest of the points were virtually treated as redundant. In R.A No.213 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein, the lower appellate Court framed the following points:
“i) Whether the denial of title of the appellant/petitioner by the respondent/tenant is bonafide?
ii) Whether there is jural relationship between the appellant/landlady and the respondent/tenant?
iii) Whether the appellant/landlady requires the petition schedule premises for bonafide personal requirement of her sons and grand sons?
iv) Whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled to invoke Section 10-C of the A.P. Rent Control Act for recovery of possession of the petition schedule premises?”
All the points were answered in favour of the respondent and eviction of the petitioner was ordered.
The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that though the petitioner did not deny the title of the respondent in clear terms, the appellate Court delved mostly into it and ordered eviction on the basis of the finding on that point. It is pleaded that there was no actual denial of title by the petitioner. The entire record of the case has been furnished to this Court along with the paper book.
It is true that in the R.C, the respondent did not mention the manner, in which she acquired rights over the property. However, in its counter the petitioner raised serious doubt as to the very competence of the respondent to file the R.C. Para 2 of the counter reads as under:
“The petitioner has filed the present eviction petition with vague, unspecified and unelucidated pleadings, just to harass and vex the respondent to claim abnormal rents and huge goodwill without proper entitlement. The claim as preferred has no factual substance and legal sanctity. The petition is devoid of merit, substance and force. There is no truth, bonafides and genuineness in the claim and the relief as prayed in the petition.”
Assuming that the paragraph is a preface to the counter with general denials, it needs to be seen as to whether the title of the respondent was specifically dealt with in the counter. In para 3 of the R.C, the respondent has simply stated that she is the landlady of three mulgies and out of them, the petitioner is the tenant in respect of two mulgies. In relation to that paragraph, the petitioner stated in his counter as under:
“With regard to para 3 of the Petition it is submitted that this Respondent is not aware of this Petitioner is the owner of mulgies bearing No.2-2-170, 171 & 172 situated at Subhash Road, Secunderabad, A.P. No document of alleged ownership has been filed along with the Petition nor the Petitioner ever furnished any document of her ownership to this Respondent. This Respondent has obtained the suit mulgies from M/s. Bahadarmal Ramchander in the year 1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-, but not from the Petitioner herein. Prior to the filing of this Petition the Petitioner has not informed this respondent with regard to her becoming the owner and landlady of suit mulgies nor the actual owners & Landlords, M/s. Bahadarmal Ramchander never informed regarding transfer of ownership or attornment of tenancy at any point of time. This Petitioner by filing the present petition projecting herself as owner and land lady and prior to it she never approached or introduced herself as owner or the Landlady. The representatives of M/s. Bahadarmal Ramchander used to come and collect rents from this Respondent and they are not in a habit of issuing rent receipts. They used to come and collect the rents at their convenience. The matter is before the court and the Petitioner has to plead and prove the facts as placed with proper supporting documents. It is the duty of the Landlady to inform the tenant with regard to her becoming the owner/landlady. It is true that the respondent is carrying on cloth business in the Petition schedule premises since 1980 and the present monthly rent is Rs.1800/- for the said two mulgies. The petitioner has not disclose that how she has filed one Petition for two mulgies and her entitlement to do so. One single Petition for eviction from two mulgies is not maintainable. The petitioner be put to strict proof of all her allegations in the said para.”
Obviously, in view of the persistent denial by the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller framed a point on that aspect. A perusal of the evidence in relation to point No.1 discloses that PW 1 was extensively cross examined and at more places than one, suggestions were made to the effect that the respondent does not have title to the property. The plea was so persistent, and the contention was so strong, that the learned Rent Controller answered point No.1 in favour of the petitioner as under:
“In the present case the respondent admitted that he is the tenant to the petition schedule premises and he was inducted by Rahadurmal Ramchander in the year 1980 and he is paying the rents continuously to the representative of Bahadurmal Ramchander. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed any proof of document to show that she is landlady and owner of the Petition Schedule Property. The above citation relied by the petitioner counsel the facts and circumstances are not attracted to the instant case facts and circumstances. Hence, this point is answered in favour of respondent against the petitioner.”
Once that is the manner in which the R.C was decided, it is not open to the petitioner herein to plead at this stage that it did not deny the title of the respondent at all. It is also essential to note that the learned Rent Controller did not decide any other point except the one relating to the title of the respondent vis-à-vis the property to institute the proceedings.
Before the lower appellate Court, the respondent filed some additional documents, being Exs.P-29 to 35. They included original sale deed of the year 1976 (Exs.P-29), gift settlement deed (original) dated 25-06-1979 (Ex.P-30), original sale deed dated 08-10-1976 (ExP-31), original gift settlement deed dated 25- 06-1979 (Ex.P-32), original Will dated 05-05-1993 (Ex.P-33) and encumbrance certificates (Exs.P-34 and 35). With those documents, the respondent established her title vis-à-vis the property and there were no other rival contestants. Exs.R-24 to R-26 filed by the petitioner were only photographs and Exs.R-27 to R-30 encumbrance certificates did not have any effect on the title of the respondents.
Thorough discussion was undertaken by the appellate Court and it was held that the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the respondent does not hold title to the premises, is without any basis. Learned counsel for the respondent is not able to show that the finding of the lower appellate Court is not correct. On the other hand, the finding is sought to be supported only with a view to avoid consequences that flow from it. The petitioner realized that the denial of title by itself constitutes a ground, for ordering eviction. Having taken a strong plea and adduced evidence to the effect that the respondent does not have title to the property, the petitioner cannot turn down and plead to the contrary.
It is not as if, eviction was ordered only on the ground that the appellant denied the title of the respondent, without any bonafides. Two other aspects, namely, (a) bonafide requirement of the premises and (b) the entitlement of the respondent to seek eviction under Section 10-C of the Act were extensively dealt with. The fact that the grand children of the respondent required the premises for establishing their own business was not seriously disputed. Further, the status of the respondent as widow is not denied. The Act created facility in favour of widows, in the context of seeking eviction of their tenants. Such a right cannot be denied to the respondent.
Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Court in the R.A. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request for granting time for vacating the premises. The plea is strongly opposed by the respondent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time is granted to the petitioner till the end of October, 2015 for vacating the premises subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller within four weeks from today, to the effect that it would put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31-10-2015 and continues to pay the rents, regularly.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14-11-2014 ks Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/O ks