B. Duryodhan vs D. Anand

This civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/landlord, being aggrieved by the orders in R.A.No.219 of 2012, dated 11.06.2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, reversing the orders in R.C.No.123 of 2011, dated 12.10.2012 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

It is urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate Court failed to consider the basic concept of bonafide requirement which was proved by the revision petitioner before the trial Court and the petition schedule premises was necessary for self-occupation i.e. for the business of the landlord. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that RW-1/ tenant did not deny the bonafide requirement of the premises for the wife of the revision petitioner, which was not considered by the lower appellate Court and further contended that the appellate Court did not apply the provision of law under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) properly, which is categorically silent about any need on the part of the person claiming under a particular provision of law to have either any experience or arrangement of finance or obtaining of licence for business before seeking eviction on the grounds stipulated under the said provision of law. It is further urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate Court has erroneously relied on the aspect of PWs.1 and 2 not being able to provide the details of purchase of imitation jewelry or non-maintaining of any account when the wife of the revision petitioner categorically stated in her evidence that she is selling the items only to her family friends and relatives and that she intends to start the business in the petition schedule premises. It is further urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate Court gave an adverse finding on the ground that non-issuance of notice before filing the RCC is a sine-qua-non for the institution of a rent control case seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, and further, since the appellate Court attempted to interpolate the concept of “Pardanashin”, non-provision of licence or details of purchase of business material, is not at all necessary.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent contended that the appellate Court has rightly come to a conclusion that there is no bonafide requirement for the landlord and therefore, reversed the findings of the Principal Rent Controller, and that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the appellate Court. It is also urged by the learned counsel for respondent that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent and that there are three other brothers of the landlord who were collecting the rents (not parties before the trial Court) and that there is an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs which was deposited with the landlord, and therefore, it is not necessary to grant eviction. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the undisputed facts in the case are that the respondent is the tenant in the ground floor of the mulgi bearing No.7-2-822/1, Ashok Nagar, Pot Market, Secunderabad, having obtained the premises for tenancy from the father of the landlord and he is running his business in Silver and Gold jewelry in the said premises and paying rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises is an undisputed fact.

It is the specific case of the landlord/revision petitioner that he intends to set up business of bangles, imitation jewelry in the petition schedule premises in the name of his wife Santoshi, besides his business in Papads in a tin sheet dabba at Stall Nos.1 and 23 belonging to GHMC. Therefore, he bonafidely requires the petition schedule property for the purpose of commencing business in the name of his wife for imitation jewelry and that the said petition schedule premises is suitable for the proposed business and that he is not having any other non-residential building of his own in the twin cities.

It is the contention of the tenant that the wife of the petitioner as per their custom, is a “pardanashin” woman and the revision petitioner never expressed any idea with the respondent to vacate the suit mulgi on the ground of bonafide requirement for the business of his wife and it is the further contention of the respondent that as they denied to pay additional amount of Rs.2 Lakhs, the rent control case was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement.

On perusal of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, it is evident that the father of the landlord i.e. Late Goverdhan let out the suit schedule premises to the father of the respondent about 40 years back and the father of the landlord died 30 years back. The evidence of PW-1 i.e. the revision petitioner/ landlord clearly disclose that after the death of his father, his mother used to collect the rents and there was no written rental agreement between his mother and the father of the respondent. The evidence further discloses that the father of the respondent also died in the year 2004 and there was no rental agreement between both the parties. Ex.P-5 is the gift deed, which clearly discloses that the revision petitioner became the owner of the petition schedule premises in the year 1989. It is admitted by PW-1 that the father of the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs towards goodwill. PW-1 categorically stated in his evidence that other than the earnings of Rs.200/- per day in papad business, he has no other source of income. PW-2, who is the wife of the landlord, categorically deposed before the trial Court that she intends to start imitation jewelry and bangles business, as her husband’s earnings are not sufficient to their family needs. In the cross-examination, she categorically admitted that every month, they purchase jewelry worth Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and denied the suggestion that she was not doing any imitation jewelry business. This evidence as to the bonafide requirement by the landlord, is not shattered in any manner.

The evidence of RW-1 i.e. the tenant discloses that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and on the other hand, it is admitted by RW-1 that there were no disputes between him and the revision petitioner and that he was regularly paying rents since prior to filing of the rent control case. It is also admitted by the tenant that his father was a tenant and after the death of his father, he was continuing the business in the petition schedule premises. It is also admitted by RW-1 that he is having three mulgies in the ground floor in the property owned by him and his brothers, which is situated at Nala Bazar, Secunderabad and that the landlord owns only this premises and he has seen the landlord carrying on the papad business in the mulgi of GHMC. It is also admitted by the tenant before the trial Court that there was an understanding to treat Rs.2 Lakhs as goodwill. It is admitted by RW-1 in his evidence that he had one other mulgi and inspite of the same, he is not interested to vacate the petition schedule premises.

The Trial Court, considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there is bonafide requirement for the landlord to run business in the name of his wife Santoshi and there is no other alternate premises to run the business and accordingly directed the tenant to vacate the premises and handover the same to the landlord as they intend to commence/start imitation jewelry business in the petition schedule premises. Ex.R-1 is the receipt for Rs.2 Lakhs. No doubt, the respondent has deposited the above said amount, but depositing such amount will not give a right to the respondent to continue in the petition schedule premises forever. As the landlord has proved the ground of bonafide requirement for commencing the business in imitation jewelry in the name of his wife, the trial Court ordered that the respondent/tenant shall vacate the petition schedule premises within three months from the date of order, failing which, the petitioner/landlord was granted liberty to proceed as per law. Even the finding of the appellate Court is that as per Ex.P-5/Gift deed dated 21.04.2001, the revision petitioner herein has become the absolute owner of the property and there is no force in the contention of the tenant that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the other brothers of the landlord were not impleaded. It is the finding of the appellate Court that the tenant himself has stated that he is paying rents to the landlord i.e. the revision petitioner, and therefore, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The appellate Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 disclose that the turnover of the imitation jewelry business is Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per annum. On perusal of the evidence recorded by the trial Court, it is mentioned as Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, but not per annum. Further, the appellate Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner herein is a Marwadi and therefore, they would observe ‘pardanashin’ custom, though there is no evidence on record to that effect. There was no suggestion from the counsel for the respondent before the trial Court that the wife of the petitioner is a ‘Pardanashin’ woman, and therefore, she cannot run any business. In the absence of such evidence, the appellate Court ought not to have presumed that the wife of the landlord is a ‘Pardanashin’ woman and therefore, she cannot run any business and thus there is no bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises. Though it is the admitted case of respondent/tenant that he has been doing business in the petition schedule premises for the past 54 years, that does not entitle him to continue in the same premises for his lifetime. As the revision petitioner/landlord has proved the ground of bonafide requirement for the purpose of establishing business in imitation jewelry in the name of his wife, the respondent/tenant is liable to vacate the premises.

Learned counsel for revision petitioner/landlord, in support of his contentions, has relied on the following judgments :

Narbadabai Pitti & others v. B.Narsing Sha 2008 (1) ALT 146.

Mohd. Saqawath Ali Bhakshi v. Shaik Mohd. Iqbal 2011 (5) ALT 803.

Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & another 1999) 4 SCC 1.

Yashoda Devi Sarada & another v. Poornima Dresses, Hyderabad 2011 (2) ALD 734.

Smt. G.Kaushalya Devi v. Ghanshyamdas AIR 2000 SC 656.

Degala Veerabhadra Rao & others v. Varanasi Laxminarayana 2013 (2) ALD 663.

Mangilal Rathi & another v. Kishen Rao 1967-II An.W.R. 366.

Mohd.Khasim (dead) by LRs & others v. G.Meera Bai 2007 (1) ALD 784.

Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679.

The gist of the preposition of law laid down in all the aforesaid judgments is that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has complete freedom in the matter. The tenant is liable to vacate the rented premises once the bonafide requirement is established by the landlord. It is also held that it is not necessary for the landlord to make all the necessary arrangements for the business, as, unless the premises itself is available for occupation, the landlord would not be in a position to make any preparations like obtaining the licence or placing orders for the supply of goods etc. Therefore, all the aforesaid judgments would squarely apply to the case of the revision petitioner.

Further, with regard to the case of the respondent/tenant that he deposited Rs.2 Lakhs with the revision petitioner/landlord towards goodwill and therefore, he cannot be evicted from the petition schedule premises, the learned counsel for revision petitioner has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in K.Narasimha Rao v. T.M.Nasimuddin Ahmed AIR 1996 SC 1214, wherein, it is held that the landlord is bound to refund the excess amount, if any, paid by the tenant in addition to fair rent.

In the case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to refund of the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs by the revision petitioner to the respondent. The revision petitioner/landlord is willing to refund the said amount at the time of vacating the premises by the respondent/tenant.

In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed, setting aside the orders in R.A.No.219 of 2012, dated 11.06.2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The respondent/tenant is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover vacant possession to the revision petitioner within three months from today, failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that at the time of vacating the premises by the respondent/tenant, the revision petitioner/landlord shall refund the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs paid by the respondent as goodwill, after deducting arrears of rent, if any. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.