AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the tenant against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 15.10.2015 in R.A.No.95 of 2014. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Chief Judge while reversing the orders of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, dated 22.02.2014 in R.C. No. 130 of 2012 ordered for eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises on the ground of willful default of payment of rents by the tenant.
The facts in brief are as follows:-
The revision petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The landlord, who is the owner of schedule premises/mulgi bearing No.3-2-16, admeasuring 10’ x 10’, including the show-case in front of the mulgi situated at R.P. Road, Secunderabad, filed R.C. No. 130 of 2012 alleging that the premises-mulgi was let out to the revision petitioner-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. The monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- was fixed in the proceedings initiated by the landlord seeking fixation of fair rent in R.C. No. 61 of 2002 which was also confirmed in appeal in R.A. No. 19 of 2004. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant was depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the credit of the R.A. With a prayer to call for the FDR amount of Rs.48,375/- and seeking withdrawal of the same, the landlord filed applications before the lower appellate Court. However, the applications were returned on 25.04.2007 with an endorsement that only a sum of Rs.24,375/- was in deposit to the credit of R.A. lying with Indian Overseas Bank, Dilsukhnagar Branch. The landlord having withdrew the said amount of Rs.24,375/-, obtained certified copy of the statement of ledger account for the year 2003-2009 which disclosed that the tenant had not deposited any amounts to the credit of R.A. from August, 2004 to till 2006, thereby committed willful default in payment of rents from August, 2004 to June, 2006. However, the tenant had sent the rents for the subsequent months through money order from July, 2006. Therefore, the landlord sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default of willful default in payment of rents. That apart the premises was claimed towards bona fide requirement claiming that the landlord is carrying on business, along with his son, in mulgi bearing No. 5-1-15, bearing building No. 8093, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, as a tenant and therefore, he requires the schedule mulgi for his self-occupation to carry on business along with his son.
Contesting the R.C., the tenant filed a counter denying the allegation of willful default in payment of rents. According to him, he was regularly depositing rents for the period from July, 2004, upto the end of June, 2006 in advance for three months at each stage in the Court and had also issued notices to the counsel for the landlord in that regard and obtained receipts/acknowledgements of the notices. As regards the claim of bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord to carry on his own business, it is stated that on the earlier occasion, the said plea was rejected by the Rent Controller in R.C. No. 12 of 1985 which was confirmed in R.A. No. 72 of 1992 and the revision preferred thereagainst also stood dismissed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2188 of 1994. When the matter was carried in appeal in Civil Appeal No. 5907 of 1998, the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court. It is therefore, contended that there are no bona fides in the plea of personal requirement and sought for dismissal of the R.C.
To prove the claim before the Rent Controller, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked on behalf of the landlord. On behalf of tenant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.36 were marked.
The learned Rent Controller, after trial, negated both the claims of the landlord i.e., willful default in payment of rents by the tenant as well as personal requirement of the schedule premises and dismissed the R.C. against which, the landlord preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.95 of 2014 which has been allowed by reversing the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the point of willful default committed by the tenant and thereby ordered for eviction of the tenant. Hence, this revision by the tenant. Thus, in this revision, we are concerned with the findings of the lower appellate authority as to the willful default of tenant in payment of rents.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant that the finding of lower appellate authority in holding that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rents is erroneous and against the evidence available on record. It is contended that for the period from August, 2004 to July, 2006 the tenant was regularly depositing the rents well in advance to the credit of R.A. No. 19 of 2004 without any default by following the procedure. Moreover, he had filed the acknowledgement of notices sent to the counsel for the landlord regarding deposit of rents made to the credit of the R.A. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the lower appellate authority in holding that the tenant had committed willful default in depositing of rents for the period from August, 2004 to July, 2006 and thereby ordering his eviction from the premises is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord contends that considering Ex.P.3, ledger extract pertaining to R.A. No. 19 of 2004 and considering Exs.R.13 to R.36, documents filed by the tenant, the lower appellate authority rightly came to the conclusion that the tenant has failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules made under the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and thereby concluded that the tenant committed willful default in depositing the rents for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that as the findings of the lower appellate authority are on appreciation of the evidence in proper perspective, the same needs no interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
According to the landlord, the tenant committed willful default in depositing the rents to the credit of R.A. No. 19 of 2004 during the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006. In support thereof, the landlord himself examined as P.W.1 apart from examining his brother as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. Among them, the landlord is placing much reliance on Ex.P.3, copy of ledger extract pertaining to R.A. No. 19 of 2004. As rightly observed by the lower appellate authority, Ex.P.3 does not reflect any entries as to the deposit of the rents by the tenant for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006. On the other hand, it is the claim of the tenant that he used to deposit the rents to the credit of the R.A. three months in advance and he made deposits from July, 2004 to June, 2009 by obtaining challans from the accounts section of the appellate authority and to substantiate the same, he got marked Exs.R.13 to R.36, which are challans, notices and memos. Relying on Exs.R.13 to R.36 and in view of admission of the landlord in the cross-examination about his counsel receiving the said memos, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant had not committed any willful default in depositing the rents to the credit of the R.A. for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006. However, taking note of the mandatory procedure for depositing of rents in the bank by the tenant as enumerated under Rule 5 (4) of the Rules and taking into consideration the absence of any entries in Ex.P.3, ledger, as to the deposit of rents or the delivery of copies of challans to the office of the appellate authority in R.A. No.19 of 2004, the lower appellate authority came to the conclusion that the tenant had committed willful default in depositing the rents to the credit of R.A. No. 19 of 2004 for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006.
A perusal of Rule 5 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 discloses that the rule-making authority has taken care to meticulously frame the rules and prescribed a detailed procedure so as not to leave any room for controversy to arise between the landlord and the tenant as to the payment of the rent. The object of framing such rule is that merely because of litigation or a strained relationship existing between the tenant and the landlord, the landlord may not be harassed for realizing the rent and he must be able to collect and receive the rent regularly. The tenant has to deposit the rent through a challan as prescribed accompanying the deposit wherein all the particulars provided for by sub-rule (2) have to be given. The challan is in triplicate. One copy is to be delivered to the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, after securing acknowledgement on another copy which is to be retained by the tenant. Such delivery of copy of the challan containing particulars specified in sub-rule (2) enables the Controller/appellate authority to maintain proper accounts and also to give notice of the deposit to the landlord. In the present case, in Ex.P.3, ledger, there are no entries reflecting the deposit of the rents for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006. For such absence of entries, the tenant has not offered any explanation nor was it his case that the concerned officials in the Account’s Section of the appellate authority had refused to receive the challans. Such being the case, the lower appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant has not followed the steps contemplated under sub-rule (4) of the Rule 5 of the Rules made under the Act, which is mandatory in nature and allowed the appeal in part holding that the tenant had committed willful default in depositing of rents for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2006 setting aside the findings of the Rent Controller on this issue. The said findings of the lower appellate authority are on re-appreciation of the entire material available on record in proper perspective and the same needs no interference by this Court.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In order to save the tenant from abrupt eviction, this Court grants him time upto 31.01.2024 for vacating the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking on affidavit before the Rent Controller within four weeks from today, incorporating the following terms and strictly complying therewith:-
(i) That on or before 31.01.2024, the tenant shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord and shall not induct anyone else in possession or create any third-party interest in the tenancy premises;
(ii) That the statement of the deposits made by the tenant with all the relevant particulars, so as to satisfy the Rent Controller and the landlord that all the arrears have been cleared upto date, shall be filed within four weeks from today; and
(iii) The amount equivalent to the rent calculated upto 31.01.2024 shall be deposited in advance within a period of four weeks from today.
Failing compliance with any of the above terms, the decree for eviction shall be available for eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant forthwith. No costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.