THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5960 OF 2008 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.618 OF 2009 Dated: 13.06.2014 Between:
Mohd.Mahmood Ali .. Petitioner and Faqruddin & another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5960 OF 2008 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.618 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:
Since both the matters are between the same parties and as regards the same subject property, they are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
C.R.P.No.5960 of 2008 is filed challenging the judgment dated 04.11.2008 rendered in R.A.No.144 of 2007 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.06.2007 passed in R.C.No.259 of 2004 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
C.R.P.No.618 of 2009 is filed challenging the judgment dated 04.11.2008 rendered in R.A.No.143 of 2007 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.06.2007 passed in R.C.No.260 of 2004 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Respondents herein filed R.C.No.259 of 2004 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under section 10 (2) (1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against the tenant seeking eviction on the ground of willful default, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2007 and as against the same R.A.No.144 of 2007 was filed, which was allowed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, vide impugned judgment directing the revision petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover the physical possession of the same to the respondents.
Respondents herein also filed R.C.No.260 of 2004 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to fix the fair rent of Rs.22,500/- per month from Rs.350/- per month, which was also dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2007 and as against the same R.A.No.143 of 2007 has been preferred, which was allowed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, vide impugned judgment by fixing the rent of the schedule premises at Rs.7,700/- per month.
Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as follows:
In the year 1966, father of the tenant by name Late Mohd.Yaseen Ali obtained the petition schedule premises which is a small mulgi on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- exclusive of electricity charges. In the year 1999, said Yaseen Ali got bed ridden and hence since January, 2000, onwards the respondent-Mohd.Mahmood Ali became the tenant and was doing lathe machine works in the said mulgi. Rent was enhanced from time to time and from September, 2001, rent payable is Rs.350/- per month exclusive of electricity charges as per the oral tenancy. After paying the month, respondent used to sign in the note book kept by the landlords. However, the tenant was very much irregular in payment of rents, he paid rents upto May, 2002 only and thereafter inspite of repeated demands and requests, the tenant failed to pay the arrears of rents from June, 2002, onwards. Rent being paid by the respondent is meager as the petition schedule property is located in the heart of the city. Hence, the landlord approached the trial Court seeking eviction in R.C.No.259 of 2004 and enhancement of rent in R.C.No.260 of 2004.
Before the trial Court, the tenant took the plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant contending that 50 years ago, father of the tenant occupied open piece of land and was doing business of mechanical work under the sky for sometime and then he put up a thatti roof with bamboos as shelter and subsequently he constructed walls putting the zinc sheets and said constructions was also changed from time to time. The respondents used to assist the tenant in maintaining the accounts and taking advantage of the same, they filed the present claims.
The trial Court dismissed the claims of the respondents herein mainly on the ground that they failed to substantiate their ownership in respect of schedule premises.
However, in appeal, the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that when the tenant could not establish his claim by producing even a scrap of paper and the appellants therein i.e. the respondents herein produced sufficient evidence on record to show that they are the owners of the petition schedule premises and they are exercising their ownership rights over the same all along and thereby the first Appellate Court allowed both the appeals directing the tenant to vacate the schedule premises and also enhancing the fair rent to Rs.7,700/- per month from the date of petition.
Aggrieved over the said findings of the first Appellate Court, tenant filed these Civil Revision Petitions on the grounds that the documents filed by the respondents herein do not support their title over the petition schedule property, cross examination of P.W.1 clearly reveals that the respondents herein are not having valid documents to support their title, no lease deed is filed by the respondents herein to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, the evidence of P.W.1 categorically reveals that he is working as a private accountant and used to attend the accounts of the revision petitioner and taking advantage of illiteracy of the revision petitioner herein the respondents filed the present false claims and as such the first Appellate Court erred in appreciating the said facts in proper perspective and thereby passed the impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.
Insofar as CRP No.618 of 2009 preferred against the order of fixation of fair rent by the Rent Appellate Court is concerned, it is seen from the record that as per note book (marked as Ex.P.2 in RC No.259 of 2004), the tenant has affixed his signatures against some months and figures. Against months of April and May, 2001 - Rs.600/- was mentioned with the date 09.10.2001, and under this information also the tenant has put his signature. Thereafter, against months of June, July and August, 2001, figure Rs.900/- has been mentioned on 25.11.2001 and that the tenant has affixed his signature there. Thereafter against the month of September, 2001, figure Rs.350/- was mentioned and for the months of October, November, December, January, February and March, 2001 amount of Rs.2100/- was mentioned and signature of the tenant was also available there. Further, against the months of April and May, 2002 figure of Rs.700/- was mentioned and it also bears his signature. Considering above circumstances, it can be safely held that the denial of the title of the landlord is not bona fide, and that the tenant could not produce any document to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the given property independently. The Rent Appellate Court held that jural relationship of landlords and tenant is existing between the parties. However, the Rent Appellate Court took Rs.20/- per sft per month as fair for the area of 385 sft and accordingly fixed Rs.7700/- per month as fair rent.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petition schedule premises though situated in a highly commercial locality, it is a mulgi with zinc sheet root and that the tenant is running lathe machine works, it would be appropriate to fix the fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Subject to above modification in fair rent, the CRP No.618 of 2009 is disposed of.
Coming to CRP No.5960 of 2008 this revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 4.11.2008 in R.A.No.144 of 2007 by the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby the learned Rent Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 28.6.2007 passed in RC No.259 of 2004 by the IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad and allowed the RA N o.144 of 2007 ordering eviction of the tenant, revision petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant vehemently contended that the Rent Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller in RC No.259 of 2004 who categorically observed that there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and rightly dismissed the RC filed by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction. It is further submitted that the Rent Appellate Court failed to see that electricity connection stands in the name of the father of the revision petitioner and that previous litigation in O.S.No.1402 of 1973 was not between the petitioner and the respondent and the same is not binding on the petitioner that denial of title of the respondent is bona fide one, therefore the order under challenge is unsustainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the landlords submits that the revision petitioner has not filed any piece of evidence to prove that the petition schedule premises belong to him when he is denying the title of the landlord on the other hand (Ex.P.2) pocket book maintained by the landlord clearly indicates that the revision petitioner tenant has paid the rents upto May 2002; and that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the tenant that he is the owner of the property denial of title is not bona fide, therefore the Rent Appellate Court rightly ordered for eviction of the tenant. Though the decree in O.S.No.1402 of 1973 is not between the landlord and the tenant the decree shows that the property was declared to be property of the landlord it is contended that the landlord also filed Ex.P.8 registration copy of the sale deed dated 3.2.1964 executed by Fareeduddin , Nasiruddin, Nizamuddin in favour of N.T. Rama Rao and his family members it is contended that the entire property bearing No.4-1-535 and 536 was purchased by their grant mother by name Badrunnisa Begum and the said fact was noted in Ex.P.8. It is further stated that the landlords have inherited the said property after the death of their father as the property is the patrimony of the landlords.
Admittedly, the mulgi which is under occupation of the revision petitioner is also H.No.4-1-536. when once, the revision petitioner is denying the title in favour of the land lord, he must prove that the petition schedule premises does not belong to the landlord and that revision petitioner or his ancestors are the owners of the property and that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Ex.P.2 is the crucial document which was filed by the landlord to prove that the revision petitioner is tenant and he paid rents upto May 2002. As seen from Ex.P.2 the revision petitioner has admitted in the evidence that it is his signature and he has not disputed the same. Though it is contended by the revision petitioner that the said signatures were taken on another occasion, the revision petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove that the entries in Ex.P.2 do not relate to payment of rents for the schedule premises. As seen from the entries the revision petitioner ha signed on the entries in Ex.P.2 evidencing the fact that he paid rents upto May 2002, and when once the revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that signatures were not obtained in token of payment of rent it can be safely accepted that the payments under Ex.P.2 are towards rents for the schedule premises. The revision petitioner also failed to establish that he paid any rents for the subsequent period and thereafter committed wilful default in payment of rents .
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Rent Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that denial of title of the landlord by the revision petitioner tenant is not bona fide and that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent from June 2002 onwards. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned eviction order passed by the Rent Appellate Court. The Civil Revision Petition No.5960 of 2008 is meritless and is dismissed. No costs.
For the foregoing reasons, and subject to the modification of fair rent stated above, CRP No.618 of 2009 is disposed of and CRP No.5960 of 2008 is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to vacate the premises. No costs.
JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO SUR/KK DT: 13-6-2013 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5960 OF 2008 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.618 OF 2009 Dated: 13.06.2014