AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is filed challenging the order dated 09.01.2018 in R.A.No.238 of 2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad whereunder the order passed by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.144 of 2008 dated 29.12.2014 was set aside.
The respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/landlord in R.C.No.144 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, filed for
eviction of the revision petitioner (respondent No.2) and respondent No.5 herein (respondent No.1). The parties are referred to as arrayed in
R.C.No.144 of 2008.
The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:
(a) R.C.No.144 of 2008 was filed by the landlord stating that he is owner of the petition schedule property; the respondent No.1/tenant was inducted
under rental deed for a period of 11 months commencing from 09.06.1989 on monthly rent of Rs.100/- payable on or before 5th of every calendar
month.; the property was given for running a Taleem (Vyayamshala); it was agreed that the schedule mulgi will not be sublet; the rent was enhanced
from time to time; the respondent No.1/tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs.250/-; the receipts were passed by the landlord till February 2004; the
respondent No.2 is the disciple of the respondent No.1/tenant; the respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.969 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Junior
Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming that he is the tenant of the suit/petition schedule property and paying rent; the suit was dismissed for
default.
(b) The landlord issued notice dated 30.08.2006 to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent from March 2004 till the date of filing of RC;
the tenant gave reply dated 30.09.2006 denying the lease agreement and claiming that the respondent No.2 is the tenant of the landlord and the
respondent No.2 is himself paying the rents to the landlord. It is stated by the landlord that the tenant in violation of terms of lease dated 09.06.1989
inducting the respondent No.2 as sub-lessee; there is no privity of contract and jural relationship between the landlord and the respondent No.2. The
petition schedule mulgi has become hazardous and dangerous and it may collapse at any time, which is of 200 years old; the landlord bonafidely
requires the property for his personal occupation; the age of the landlord is 70 years and requires the schedule mulgi for personal needs.
(c) The respondent No.1/tenant remained ex parte. The respondent No.2, in his counter, stated that the landlord gave possession of the petition
schedule property to the father of the respondent No.2. From 1999 the respondent No.2 is running the ‘Taleem’ in the petition schedule
property on a rent of Rs.250/-. The respondent No.2 was paying rents regularly and the property is in good condition. The tenancy between the
landlord and the respondent No.2 was oral and there was no practice of issuing rental receipts. The landlord collected the rents of the demised mulgi
till February 2006, refused to take the rent from March 2006 and the rent for the month of March 2006 is Rs.250/- and the same was sent by money
order, which was also refused by the landlord. Again the rent for the months of March 2006 and April 2006 amounting to Rs.500/- was sent by the
respondent No.2, which was refused by the landlord. Thereafter, he had been sending rents from time to time; finally on 30.05.2009, the respondent
No.2 sent the rents from March 2006 to October 2009 amounting to Rs.11,000/- by three separate money orders, which were also refused by the
landlord.
(d) The respondent No.2 gave a notice to the landlord to furnish bank account for depositing the rent; the landlord refused to furnish the bank account;
the respondent No.2 was constrained to file a petition for deposit of rents vide RC.No.253 of 2009, which is pending. The landlord examined himself
as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent No.2 examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents were filed on his behalf.
The learned Rent Controller gave a finding that there is no jural relationship between the landlord and the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 and
there is no occasion for willful default either the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord could not
establish that the respondent No.1 is his tenant under lease deed dated 09.06.1989. The learned Rent Controller recorded that it is the evidence of the
respondent No.2 as R.W.1 that he became the tenant of the landlord and inducted into possession of the petition schedule property in the year 1999 on
a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and the lease is oral; in the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that he filed a rent case for deposit of rents on the ground
that the landlord refused to receive the rents; hence, the evidence of R.W.1 is self-contradictory regarding payment of rents regularly by him; further
R.W.1 admitted that said case was dismissed; he further admitted in the cross-examination that the landlord never received rents from him. The
learned Rent Controller held that the initial burden to prove the case lies o the landlord; P.W.1 having claimed that the tenant obtained lease under
deed dated 09.06.1989 and paid rent till February 2004 under rental receipts, has not produced any document; for reasons best known to the landlord,
he did not exhibit the documents; no explanation is given by the landlord for non-filing of those documents; only the office copy of the legal notice
dated 30.08.2006, acknowledgment card and the reply notice were marked, which are of no help to the landlord. Consequently, the learned Rent
Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the grounds of bonafide requirement and senior citizen, as jural relationship was not established.
The appeal in R.A.No.238 of 2015 filed by the landlord challenging the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 29.12.2014 was allowed.
The landlord filed the lease deed dated 09.06.1989 and marked the same as Ex.P7 before the appellate Court. Taking into consideration Ex.P7 and
admissions made in the pleadings of the parties and in the cross-examination of R.W.1, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that there is privity
of contract between the landlord and the respondent No.1 (tenant) and that the respondent No.1 (tenant) illegally entered into sublease with the
respondent No.2. The appellate Court had also taken into consideration the facts that R.C.No.253 of 2009 filed by the respondent No.2 for deposit of
rents; the landlord used to send one boy by name Ali Mehson to collect the rents even earlier to 2008 till the date of the cross-examination of R.W.1
i.e. 10.07.2014 and that R.W.1 had been paying the rent at Rs.250/- per month regularly to the said boy and he did not examine the said boy. The
appellate Court noted that admissions have been made by R.W.1 that the landlord is the owner of the petition schedule property and that the he was
neither paying the rent to the respondent No.1 nor depositing the rent to the credit of RC nor tendering rents to the petitioner-landlord. The appellate
Court having held so, allowed the eviction petition on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘the Act’); bonafide required under Section 12(b) of the Act and senior citizen under Section 10 (C) (1)(c) of
the Act.
Heard Mohd. Shafiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Pissay, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Panduranga Rao, learned
counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and there
is no evidence to prove that the petitioner is the sub-tenant of respondent No.5. The appellate Court did not give opportunity to the petitioner herein to
cross-examine the deponent after Ex.P7 rental deed dated 09.06.1989 was marked or to argue the legal aspect in marking the said document.
Having considered the submissions of both the counsel, this Court is of the view that the order of the appellate Court does not suffer from any error
of law or jurisdiction. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and Ex.P7 dated 09.06.1989, filed as additional evidence, the appellate Court
arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.1 is the tenant of the petition schedule property and the respondent No.2 is the sub-tenant. In the
counter in RC.No.144 of 2008 and in the evidence of the respondent No.2 therein as R.W.1, there is an admission that the petitioner-landlord is the
owner of the petition schedule property.
The dispute is whether the respondent No.2/petitioner herein is the tenant or the sub-tenant. It is not as if the respondent No.2/petitioner is disputing
the title of the landlord. There is a clear assertion by the petitioner that he is the owner of the property. The respondent No.1, who is the original
tenant, remained ex parte, thus the entire burden was on the respondent No.2/petitioner to prove that he is not the sub-tenant. But the Court below
disregarding the same, came to an erroneous conclusion that there is no jural relationship between the respondent No.2/petitioner herein and the
landlord and there is inconsistency in the evidence. However, the so-called inconsistencies and deficiencies have been to put to rest with Ex.P7 lease
deed dated 09.06.1989 taken on record by the appellate Court. The respondent No.2/petitioner did not lead any evidence to rebut the clinching
evidence under Ex.P7 wherein there is a clear proof of lease between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The respondent No.2/petitioner cannot be
permitted to take the plea that he was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, after Ex.P7 was taken on record by the
appellate Court. The said contention is without any basis. The record does not disclose that the respondent No.2/petitioner raised the said issue before
the learned Rent Controller and in the absence of any evidence on record, it has to be presumed that Ex.P7 was taken on record and marked by giving
reasonable opportunity to respondent No.2/petitioner (R.W.1) and the landlord (P.W.1) and by following the procedure contemplated under law. Any
submission to the contrary is unacceptable.
In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any merits in the civil revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.