AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner filed these two Revision Petitions aggrieved by the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in RCA Nos.3 and 4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority, Warangal, whereby the appellate Court confirmed the common order dated 20.11.2017 passed in RCC Nos.6 and 7 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Warangal.
The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord in both the revisions.
Mr.Chidara Uma Maheswar Rao-landlord filed RCC Nos.6 and 7 of 2010 against Methuku Janardhan-tenant under Section 10 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act of 1960’) seeking eviction of the petition schedule property.
The landlord is the absolute owner and possessor of house property bearing No.9/1020 corresponding 9-10-7 consisting of ground floor and first floor situated at JPN Road, Warangal. The tenant obtained first floor premises on lease out of the said house property on 1.5.2007. A lease agreement was executed to that effect on 02.05.2007 for a period of two years. After expiry of lease period, no fresh lease deed was executed and the tenant was paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,400/- as per the terms of the lease deed and landlord has to pass a receipt, but the tenant failed to pay the rent and committed default. If the tenant failed to pay the rent and committed default of two months of rent, the landlord can evict the tenant from the premises without any termination notice. Tenant paid the rent in cash and the landlord passed receipts till 2008. Thereafter, without the consent of the landlord, the tenant started depositing the rents in S.B. Account, Karur Vysya Bank, Warangal, from December 2008 and when the landlord questioned the tenant, he has not expressed any reason and accordingl he was depositing the rents in bank account with ill-motive and oblique intention. The landlord issued rental receipts whenever the tenant deposited the cash. The payments of rent are mentioned below:
Rent for the month of
Due Date
Date of payment
Amount paid/ deposited
Remarks for appreciatio n delayed by number of days.
May
June
July
05-06-2007
05-07-2007
05-08-2007
03-05-2007
03-05-2007
03-05-2007
10,200=00
August
September
October, 2007
05-09-2007
05-10-2007
05-11-2007
31-08-2007
31-08-2007
31-08-2007
10,200=00
November, 2007
05-12-2007
30-11-2007
3,400=00
December, 2007
05-01-2008
02-01-2008
3,400=00
January February March, 2008
05-02-2008
05-03-2008
05-04-2008
10-03-2008
10-03-2008
10-03-2008
10,200=00
35 days
05 days
April May
June, 2008
05-05-2008
05-06-2008
05-07-2008
30-05-2008
30-05-2008
30-05-2008
10,200=00
25 days
July August
September 2007
05-08-2008
05-09-2008
05-10-2008
12-11-2008
12-11-2008
12-11-2008
10,200=00
97 days
67 days
37 days
October November, 2008
05-11-2008
05-12-2008
18-12-2008
18-12-2008
6,800=00
43 days
13 days
December, 2008
05-01-2009
31-12-2008
3,400=00
January, 2009
05-02-2009
31-01-2009
MO
3,400=00
February, 2009
05-03-2009
06-04-2009
3,400=00
March, 2009
05-04-2009
07-04-2009
3,400=00
April, 2009
05-05-2009
30-04-2009
3,400=00
May, 2009
06-06-2009
30-05-2009
3,400=00
June, 2009
05-07-2009
30-06-2009
3,400=00
July, 2009
05-08-2009
31-07-2009
3,400=00
August, 2009
05-09-2009
31-08-2009
3,400=00
The tenant paid rent for the month of January, 2009 and it was received by the landlord on 30.01.2009 and later again started depositing the rents in S.B. Account. The landlord issued notice on 20.12.2008 and a reply notice was issued by the tenant. Landlord is acting as a Manager in Ganapathi Stationery and Binding Works pertaining to his wife and she was running the business in a rent premises bearing No.12-8-127 situated at old Beet Bazaar, Warangal, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- since three years. The landlord is blessed with four children, the eldest son is working at Bangalore and the landlord performed the marriage of his two daughters. His younger son, after completion of Post Graduation, assisting his mother in her business. The landlord has no other business and the tenant is also having a small portion of 40 square yards house with Municipal No.8-2-44 situated at S.V.N.Road, Warangal, and he let out the same to one Venkateshwara Kirana and General Stores. As the landlord is running the business of binding works from 1994 and he is having past experience, he intended to do the business in the petition schedule property. As he required the accommodation for his personal occupation, he asked the tenant to vacate the premises and handover to him within a reasonable time.
The tenant would state that he obtained the property on lease for running the business in the name and style of Deccan Optical Eye Testing Centre. Prior to him, it was taken on lease for Rs.1,100/- under a lease deed dated 30.01.1995 for the total building. Later, he obtained the ground floor on lease from 30.01.1995 from the father of the landlord in the year 1989 and after his death the landlord and his brothers were collecting the rents. The landlord stated that in a family settlement, it was allotted to him and executed a fresh lease agreement for a period of five years from 01.03.1996 to 28.02.2001 and he continued to pay Rs.2,100/- and later enhanced to Rs.2,400/-per month and presently he is paying Rs.3,200/- per month and the landlord has not executed fresh lease agreement, but permitted the tenant orally to continue as a tenant. The landlord is having so many houses and mulgies in the Warangal town and as such, there is no bona fide requirement for him to occupy the petition schedule property and he has never committed any default. His both sons are well educated and doing different jobs at different places. The tenant further submitted that the petition schedule premises is aged 65 years, having wooden doors. At the time of road widening, it was partly dismantled, for which, the tenant spent Rs.2,00,000/- for remodelling, but the landlord has not afforded to colours/paints and whitewashing and minor repairs at any point of time and he renovated the shop with air conditioners and with computerised eye testing machinery. The tenant would also submit that he is paying telephone bills and is doing business since 35 years, having good reputation in Warangal town. He also entered into agreement of sale for the entire building ground and first floor with the landlord for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,50,000/- and paid Rs.13,50,000/- as advance on 08.06.2009, however, the landlord refused to execute the registered sale deed in his favour after receiving the balance sale consideration, thereby, he filed O.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal, seeking specific performance and also filed a criminal case against the landlord on one or two occasions. He also paid property tax of the building and the landlord could not pay the same and thus, requested the Court to dismiss the application.
The landlord was himself examined as P.W.1 and his son was examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The tenant was examined as P.W.1 and he also examined another witness as R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R41.
The averments in R.C.C.No.7 of 2010, in nutshell, are as follows:
The tenant obtained ground floor premises out of the said house property bearing No.9/1020 corresponding to 9-10-7 on 01.03.1996. A lease agreement was executed on 06.07.1996 for a period of five years and it was also duly notarized. After the expiry of the lease, no fresh lease deed was executed and he was paying rent of Rs.3,200/- per month as per the terms of lease. He should pay the rent on or before 5th of every month. If the tenant failed to pay the rent and committed default for two months, the landlord can evict him without any termination notice. The tenant paid rent in cash till August 2007 and later deposited the same in bank account without assigning any reason. The payment of rents is shown below:
Rent for the month of
Due Date
Date of Deposit in
S.B. A/c. Bearing
No.1415155
1680
Amount deposited
Remarks for appreciati on
September, 2007
& October, 2007
05-10-2007
05-11-2007
23-11-2007
6,400=00
Delayed by 48 days
November, 2007
05-12-2007
31-12-2007
3,200=00
26 days
December, 2007
05-01-2008
31-01-2008
3,200=00
26 days
January, 2008
05-02-2008
29-02-2008
3,200=00
24 days
February, 2008
05-03-2008
30-03-2008
3,200=00
25 days
March, 2008
05-04-2008
30-04-2008
3,200=00
25 days
April, 2008
05-05-2008
31-05-2008
3,200=00
26 days
May, 2008
05-06-2008
30-06-2008
3,200=00
25 days
June, 2008
05-07-2008
31-07-2008
3,200=00
26 days
July, 2008
05-08-2008
30-08-2008
3,200=00
25 days
August, 2008
05-09-2008
01-10-2008
3,200=00
26 days
September, 2008
05-10-2008
31-10-2008
3,200=00
25 days
October, 2008
05-11-2008
29-11-2008
3,200=00
24 days
November, 2008
05-12-2008
31-12-2008
3,200=00
26 days
December, 2008
05-01-2009
Not paid
3,200=00
Still due
January, 2009
05-02-2009
31-01-2009
(By MO)
3,200=00
--
February, 2009
05-03-2009
06-04-2009
3,200=00
30 days
March, 2009
05-04-2009
07-04-2009
3,200=00
02 days
April, 2009
05-05-2009
30-04-2009
3,200=00
--
May, 2009
05-06-2009
30-05-2009
3,200=00
--
June, 2009
05-07-2009
30-06-2009
3,200=00
--
July, 2009
05-08-2009
31-07-2009
3,200=00
--
August, 2009
05-09-2009
31-08-2009
3,200=00
--
The rent for the month of January 2009 was paid through money order and it was received by the landlord on 30.01.2009. Later from December 2008 onwards, the tenant is depositing the rents in the bank account. Landlord issued notice on 20.12.2008 and a reply was given by the tenant. The other factors regarding obtaining of mulgi for personal requirement and filing of suit for specific performance are one and the same and as such they need no reproduction.
The trial Court in a common order framed the following points for determination:
Whether the petition schedule property is required to the petitioner on bona fide requirement?
Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rents as alleged by the petitioner?
Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property as prayed by the petitioner?
To what relief?
R.C.C.No.6 of 2010 is filed for the house situated at first floor of the building and R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 is filed in respect of the ground floor portion of the same building. It was held by the trial Court that though the tenant stated that he incurred Rs.2,00,000/- towards renovation expenses, he has not filed any scrap of paper evidencing the same and he spent only Rs.6,000/- towards the construction of steps after road widening. It was also observed that the suit O.S.No.78 of 2009 was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal was preferred by the tenant and it is still pending. There is no dispute regarding jural relationship as landlord and tenant. The trial Court held that even if the landlord is having more than one accommodation and if he chooses to obtain the premises let out to the tenant for his personal requirement, it can be considered as bona fide requirement of the landlord and he is always the best judge to choose options and tenant cannot dictate or suggest for choosing a particular mulgi for his personal occupation. So also, as per the table extracted above the rent was paid irregularly and it was not paid on or before 5th of every month and the delay for each month was also specifically mentioned in the remarks column. As such, it was held that the tenant committed default and thus, both the applications were allowed, directing the tenant to vacate the schedule premises within 60 days from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by the said common order, the tenant preferred appeals in R.C.A.No.3 and 4 of 2017 respectively. The appellate Court also after considering the evidence on record and the arguments of both sides along with the legal principles in various citations confirmed the order of the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the said common order, the tenant preferred the present two revision petitions by contending that both the Courts failed to consider the real facts on record and they were carried away by the above payment table given by the landlord. Learned counsel for the tenant would further assert that the tenant never committed any default and there is no bona fide requirement for the landlord. In fact, the landlord filed the tenancy cases against the tenant as a counter blast for the suit filed by him in O.S.No.78 of 2009 for specific performance.
Learned counsel for the landlord relied upon a case law reported in DAYA V/s. SHABBIR AHMED CIVIL APPEAL NO.6594 OF 2019 decided on 22.08.2019 in which it was held as follows:
‘The law is thus well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record: both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.’
Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in SANTOSH CHATURVEDI V/s. KAILASH CHANDRA CIVIL APPEAL NO.6572 OF 2010 decided on 15.11.2019 holding to the effect that ‘when the appellant has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises in any event, is required to be made’.
In the cases on hand, the landlord established that he is the owner of the premises and admittedly the petitioner herein is a tenant. There is no dispute regarding the landlord and tenant relationship. When the landlord proves his title and the fact that the tenant has not paid rents in time he is entitled for eviction. The scope of the revisions is limited. Unless and until the order of the Appellate Court or the trial Court is perverse, there is no justification in interfering with the common order as both the Courts gave concurrent findings by considering all the factors. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the common order under challenge.
In the result, the civil revision petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed accordingly confirming the common order under challenge.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.