M/S. Om Generla Stores vs Mr.Premchand Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 3876 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5370 of 2015



ORDER:

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.

2. 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 2 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

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 3 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

tenant and therefore, he requires the schedule mulgi for his

self-occupation to carry on business along with his son.

3. 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.

4. 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 4 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

the landlord. On behalf of tenant, R.W.1 was examined and

Exs.R.1 to R.36 were marked.

5. 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.

6. 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 5 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

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.

7. 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.

                                 6                             MGP,J
                                                 CRP No. 5370 of 2015

8. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and

perused the material available on record.

9. 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 7 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

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.

10. 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 8 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

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 9 MGP,J CRP No. 5370 of 2015

in proper perspective and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

11. 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.

                                 10                             MGP,J
                                                  CRP No. 5370 of 2015

12. 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.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

14th November, 2023 Tsr