Ch Koteswara Rao vs Church Of South India Trust ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4059 Tel

                                1




        HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.355 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders in

R.A. No.18 of 2012, Dated 31.07.2018 on the file of the City

Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.

2. R.C. No.103 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner/landlord i.e.

Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) against the

respondent/tenant i.e. Ch.Koteshwar Rao, retired DGP for

eviction and delivery of the physical possession of the petition

schedule property i.e. premises bearing Municipal No. 10-3-

148/1/B, comprising of ground and 1st floor, situated at East

Marredpally, Secunderabad. Petitioner stated that it is the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and let out the

same to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-

exclusive of electricity and water charges and he has to pay the

rent on or before 10th of every month. He paid the rent on

01.02.2010 vide receipt bearing No. 3688 duly signed by the

authorised agent of the CSI, TA. Medaka Diocese. Petitioner

stated that the premises occupied by the respondent is huge

one and it can accommodate more than one occupant.

Previously he gave legal notices to the respondent to vacate the C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

premises stating that it is required for evangelical and other

activities of the church. He further stated that petitioner is a

religious and charitable trust and got a number of churches in

the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and he intended

to provide residential accommodation to all the pastors and

workers who are working in the diocese. As the petitioner is

not having sufficient residential accommodation and some of

the buildings are in a dilapidated condition needs

reconstruction for the occupation of the some senior pastors. In

fact, they provided occupation to the senior pastors in very old

premises called 'Widows Home'. Petitioner in its property

board meeting dated 16.09.2003 has resolved to reconstruct

the said building. The premises is required for a bona fide

requirement for additional accommodation. Respondent is no

way connected with the church. His tenancy is month to

month. In spite of repeated requests he is not vacating the

premises and thus he is liable to vacate the premises under

Section 10 (3) of Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 15 of 1960.

3. In a counter filed by the respondent he stated that

respondent tendered the rent after 01.02.2010 for the

subsequent period, but the authorised agent of the petitioner C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

refused to receive the same. He further stated that petitioner is

owning number of premises and the requirement of additional

accommodation is only for the purpose of filing of the R.C.

When petitioner tried to dispossess him he filed O.S. No. 189 of

2010 and in I.A. No. 137 of 2010, interim injunction was

granted in his favour, later he filed this rent control case as a

counter blast.

4. After hearing the arguments of both sides the Rent

Controller observed that there is no dispute regarding the jural

relationship between the landlord and tenant and the rate of

rent tendered by the respondent to the petitioner. Admittedly

petitioner's church is having other properties in twin cities but

they have not filed the photographs to show whether the

building under occupation of the petitioner and Widow Home

which is in a dilapidated condition and also the copy of the

resolution passed by the Church to show how many properties

are under occupation. As such petitioner failed to establish that

he is in need of the petition schedule property as a bona fide

additional accommodation and accordingly dismissed the

landlord case.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, landlord preferred an appeal

in RC No. 18 of 2012. The appellate Court after considering the C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

arguments of both sides at length set aside the order of the trial

Court and directed the respondent to vacate the premises in 2

months from the date of passing of the judgment on

31.07.2018.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, tenant preferred CRP No.

2343 of 2017 in which he mainly contended that landlord filed

several rental agreements before the appellate Court and the

appellate Court instead of remanding the matter to the Rent

Controller for adducing evidence and marking of the same,

relied upon the said agreements and allowed the appeal and

thus it is to be set aside. Hon'ble High Court directed the 1st

appellate authority to conduct enquiry as per Rule 11 (2) of the

A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961

read with Section 20 (3) of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and to pass appropriate orders

within 3 months. By the time of the remand, the Chief Judge

of the City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad who passed order

was transferred and another officer examined PW.3 and after

marking of the documents and duly giving opportunity to the

tenant for cross-examination. Considering the arguments of

both sides and evidence on record allowed the appeal and

granted 2 months to the tenant to vacate the premises.

C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

7. Aggrieved by the said order the L.Rs of the tenant

preferred the C.R.P and mainly contended that the tenant Ch.

Koteshwar Rao died on 10.09.2018 at plaint schedule property

and they are residing in the said property for than 32 years.

They stated that they are regularly paying monthly rentals and

complied the orders in CRP No. 2343 of 2017 dated 02.03.2017

and further stated that the order of the first appellate Court is

erroneous, rental agreements are fabricated. Landlord has not

placed any document to show the list of paid and unpaid staff

members with the supportive documents to arrive at conclusion

of bona fide requirement. Instead of remitting the matter to the

Rent Controller for better adjudication and to give sufficient

opportunity to both the parties it was decided by the first

appellate Court. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

8. This Court in the C.R.P. directed first appellate Court to

dispose of the matter by restoring the appeal to its original

number in the appeals register and there is no direction to remit

to the Rent Controller, therefore, argument of the petitioner

herein is not tenable. In the first appellate Court Tenant has

not adduced any evidence but he cross-examined PW.3 at

length, therefore, now he cannot claim regarding the C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

admission of rental agreements before the first appellate Court.

The tenancy between the parties was commenced in the year

1984 regarding the plaint schedule premises in an extent of 702

sq. yards with 4000 sft built up area on a monthly rent of

Rs.1,000/- per month. Landlord is a religious charitable trust

registered under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913

(now under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956) and he is

having other churches in twin cities of Hyderabad and

Secunderabad. The landlord issued quit notice on 13.03.2010

to the tenant but the same landlord also filed eviction petition

vide R.C. No. 102 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Rent

Controller, CSCC, Secunderabad on the similar ground of

additional accommodation under Section 10(3) of the Act

against the adjacent tenant by name C.D. Reddy regarding the

adjacent premises of the plaint schedule premises and it was

allowed considering the grounds raised by the landlord on

29.11.2011. For the reasons best known to the Rent Controller

he dismissed R.C. No. 103 of 2010 which is filed on the same

grounds. After allowing the appeal on 06.01.2017 the tenant

filed R.C. No. 37 of 2017 for deposing arrears of rents from

November, 2015 onwards @ Rs.1,000/- per month and it was

dismissed on merits on 26.07.2018. Appeal against R.C. No. C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

102/2010 was allowed on 06.01.2017 on merits against which

the tenant preferred CRP and thus it was remanded back to the

first appellate Court and he after considering the rental

agreements which are filed by the landlord to show that all the

pastors are residing in a separate accommodation by paying

huge rents and the said rents are paid by the Trust and thus

they require the petition schedule premises for their

occupation. The appellate Court observed that it is the

consistent case of the landlord from the beginning that he

required accommodation of the tenant for occupation of the

pastors and church workers. It is open for him to readjust the

additional accommodation in the manner convenient to him and

the tenant cannot insist and direct him how it should be used.

In fact, tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding

his additional accommodation. Now the revision petitioner

cannot insist for the list of paid and unpaid staff employees and

also for supportive documents as he kept quiet before the first

appellate authority when the matter is remanded back for fresh

enquiry. It is patently clear that the tenant herein intended to

drag on the proceedings as per his whims and fancies and thus

filed this revision petition and this Court finds no infirmity or C.R.P. No.355 of 2019

irregularity in the order of the first appellate Court and it needs

no interference.

9. In the result, the C.R.P. Is dismissed but on cost of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the landlord within

one month from the date of this order.

10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

                                             _____________________
                                              P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date:    04.08.2022.

Skj.
     C.R.P. No.355 of 2019



                                           C.R.P. No.355 of 2019







       HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA




       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 355 OF 2019

                  Date.        .08.2022




Skj.
      C.R.P. No.355 of 2019