THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Revision Petition No.6565 OF 2018
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.09.2018 in R.A.No.55 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad confirming the eviction order dated 18.03.2017 passed in R.C.No.177 of 2014 by the learned III Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad, the tenant filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned III Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord has let out his house bearing No.18-08-534/12/A/16 admeasuring 100 square yards, ground floor, Edibazar to the tenant in the year 2010 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges without any security deposit. However, in the suit filed by the tenant in O.S.No.1933 of 2013 for perpetual injunction not to dispossess him from the subject property without due process of law, the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad fixed the rent @ Rs.2,000/-. Even then the tenant is not paying rent of Rs.2,000/- from the month 2 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 of November, 2013 to August, 2014. Since the landlord is not having any residential house in twin cities except the subject property, he requested the tenant to vacate the property but the tenant is postponing to vacate the same.
4. To the said petition, the tenant filed counter denying the averments of the petition and mainly contended that since March, 2014 the landlord refused to collect the rents, as such, the tenant is tendering the rents through money orders, which were also refused by the landlord.
5. During the course of enquiry, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and on behalf of the tenant, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R10 were marked. After considering the rival contentions, the learned III Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad allowed the petition by directing the tenant to vacate the subject property within three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred R.A.No.55 of 2017 and the said appeal was dismissed vide Judgment dated 06.09.2018 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by the appellate Court, the tenant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3 MGP,J
Crp_6565_2018
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the clear admission of landlord (PW1) that the rent is Rs.2,000/- per month and there is no default on part of the tenant and that the tenant is regularly depositing the rent. It is further contended that the landlord refused the money orders as the rent is not proper. Learned counsel for the tenant relied upon a decision in Vinukonda Venkata Raman v. Mootha Venkateshwara Rao and another 1, wherein the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that if the entire arrears of rent are paid prior to filing eviction petition, the eviction does not sustain. The learned counsel for the tenant further relied upon a decision in J. Narahari Chari v. B.R. Jain and others 2, wherein it was held that even by date of first appearance, if tenant remits entire rent and there were no arrears as on that day, the order of eviction is not maintainable.
8. In the case on hand there is no material to show that the tenant has paid entire arrears of rent as on the date of filing the eviction petition. If at all the landlord is refusing to receive the rents paid by the tenant, what was the necessity for the 1 2001 (6) ALD 27 (FB) 2 2004 (4) ALD 502 4 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 landlord to initiate proceedings before the learned Tribunal is unexplained. If at all the landlord is refusing to receive the rents, it is the bounden duty of the tenant to issue notice to the landlord asking him to furnish the bank account particulars enabling him to deposit the monthly rents in the said account. The tenant failed to initiate any steps in compliance of Section 8 of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rents in the account of the landlord. Since the tenant failed to come forward to remit the rents or deposit the rents in accordance with law, the landlord was constrained to approach the learned Tribunal to file eviction petition. As can be seen from the record, the learned Tribunal has rightly restricted the default period from November, 2013 to February, 2014 as the landlord as PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the tenant has committed default in payment of monthly rents from November, 2013 to February, 2014. It is on the application of the landlord, as per the orders dated 04.02.2015 in I.A.No.345 of 2014 in R.C.No.177 of 2014 the tenant has been depositing the monthly rents into the Court to the credit of the said RC.
9. Though the tenant has relied upon Exs.R1 to R10 to substantiate that he has paid monthly rents to the landlord, the tenant failed to establish that those money orders pertains to 5 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 the default period i.e., November, 2013 to August, 2014. Except stating that the landlord is not accepting the rents, no other reason was assigned by the tenant as to why the landlord is not accepting the rents. It is pertinent to note that in a suit filed by the tenant seeking injunction in respect of the petition schedule property, the monthly rent @ Rs.2,000/- was fixed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 03.06.2014. Since the tenant has not been depositing rents as fixed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the landlord was constrained to approach the Rent Controller for reddressal of his grievance.
10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the landlord failed to establish the bona fide requirement and thereby relied upon a decision in Ram Dass v. Iswar Chander 3, wherein the Apex Court held that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest. Though RWs 1 and 2 contended that PW1/landlord has other alternative residential house at A.C.Guards to reside, no documentary evidence is adduced to that extent or at least the tenant could not even produce the house number or the flat number of the alleged alternative residential house in which the landlord is residing. 3 Civil Appeal No.2969 of 1984 decided on 09.05.1988 6 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, mere assertion that the landlord has alternative residential house in the twin cities cannot be construed as true and genuine. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that landlord failed to establish the bona fide requirement is unsustainable.
11. It is further contention of the tenant that in case of seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and on senior citizen without considering that the petitioner is also a senior citizen. No doubt the tenant is also a senior citizen, however, it is pertinent to note the landlord is seven years elder to the tenant and thereby priority shall be given to the party, who is senior in age.
12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that on the request of landlord the tenant has paid a hand loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the landlord on 03.03.2013 and when the tenant has asked for repayment of said hand loan amount, the landlord has filed the eviction petition before the learned Tribunal as a counter blast. It is pertinent to note that it is the tenant, who has initially filed O.S.No.1933 of 2013 before the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the year 2013 and whereas the landlord has filed the eviction 7 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 petition before the learned Tribunal on 04.08.2014 and only thereafter, the tenant has filed O.S.No.191 of 2015 before the learned XVII Senior Civil Judge for recovery of hand loan amount. Thus, it is very clear that it is the tenant, who has initiated legal proceedings against the landlord with ulterior motive. Hence, it cannot be said at any stretch of imagination that the landlord as a counterblast to the demand made by the tenant for recovery of money, has filed the eviction petition before the learned Tribunal. The tenant as RW1 deposed in his chief-examination that landlord as a counter blast deputed unsocial elements to harass him and his family members compelling him not to demand any loan amount from him. In such circumstances, the tenant ought to have filed suit for recovery of money in the year 2013 itself instead of filing O.S.No.1933 of 2013 seeking injunction. When the dispute between the parties with regard to demand of hand loan arose in the year 2013 itself, what made the tenant to file suit for recovery of money in the year 2015 is unexplained.
13. As rightly pointed by the learned Appellate Court, the tenant is taking inconsistent pleas at various stages. For instance, in O.S.No.1933 of 2013 the tenant claimed that he has purchased the subject property but the said plea has not 8 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 been raised in any further proceedings between the parties. On one hand, the tenant claims that the landlord has borrowed hand loan from him by executing promissory note dated 03.03.2013 and on the other hand, he claims that the landlord has agreed to sell the subject property on 03.03.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and out of said consideration Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money as collateral security. Hence, there is no clarity from the tenant as to whether Rs.5,00,000/- was received by the landlord as hand loan or earnest money for sale of petition schedule property. Thus, the conduct of the tenant in taking inconsistent pleas certainly raises a suspicion with regard to his bona fides.
14. The landlord could establish all the grounds based on which he filed the eviction petition against his tenant and on the other hand the tenant failed to establish that he has not committed default in payment of rents.
15. The learned counsel for the landlord relied upon a decision in Addissery Raghavan v. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan 4, the Apex Court held that to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, it cannot exercise its power as an 4 (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 275 9 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. In the case on hand also the Rent Controller has passed the orders for eviction of the tenant from the subject property on merits and the Appellate Court has confirmed the said eviction orders and at this juncture, this Court cannot re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence to satisfy as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order. The tenant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. As stated supra, the scope and ambit of this Court under Section 22 of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act in interfering with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and Appellate Court is very limited.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order, more particularly, when the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of the trial Court is very limited to a supervisory role and can certainly not be the resort to correct every erroneous order. As seen from the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner failed to bring out any of the grounds showing that there is an error apparent on the face of 10 MGP,J Crp_6565_2018 the record to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and thereby it is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In order to save the tenant from abrupt eviction, this Court grants him time upto 18.02.2024 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 18.02.2024, 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 18.02.2024 shall be deposited in advance within a period of four weeks from today.
11 MGP,J
Crp_6565_2018
18. Failing compliance with any of the above terms, the decree for eviction shall be available for eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18.11.2023 AS