Telangana High Court

V. Kumar vs P. Ganesh Rao Died on 9 February, 2024

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1780 of 2019

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22

of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1960, preferred by the Appellant-Tenant

against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2019 passed

in R.C.A.No.25 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judge, City

Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Appellate

Court') wherein and whereby the Order and Decree dated

25.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Rent

Controller, FAC Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad,

(for short 'the Rent Controller') and the order for eviction of

the tenant from the schedule house, was confirmed.

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the

parties will be referred as per their array before the learned

Rent Controller.

03. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner is the owner and respondent is the

tenant, of the schedule house. The petitioner who is the

owner of schedule house is two rooms portion of house

premises No.3/A, Anjamma Compound, Picket,

Secunderabad. Respondent paid Rs.10,000/- towards

refundable deposit. There is rental agreement dated

05.05.2015 between petitioner and respondent for a period

of 11 months wherein it was agreed for monthly rent of

Rs.3,000/- per month and for enhancement of rent @ 10 %

per annum. Respondent paid rent for two months and

thereafter committed default from July, 2015 to December,

2016 for a period of 18 months for an amount of

Rs.54,000/-. Hence the owner sought for eviction of

tenant.

04. Respondent filed counter contending that he

paid rents regularly till April, 2016 at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per month and thereafter paid Rs.3,300/- per

month till October, 2016 but the petitioner-owner asked

him to vacate the premises, for which respondent refused.

No notice was served on respondent by petitioner seeking

him to vacate the premises. Respondent spent huge

amounts of Rs.8,00,000/- towards house repairs and to

avoid the said amount, the petitioner-owner is trying to

evict the respondent from schedule premises illegally and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

05. To prove the case of petitioner-owner, no oral

evidence was adduced and Ex.P1 was marked on

confrontation through RW1. On behalf of respondent-

tenant, tenant himself was examined as RW1 and he also

got examined RW2 and got marked Ex.R1 and R2.

06. The learned Rent Controller, after conducting

full-fledged trial, allowed the R.C. against which, the tenant

preferred an Appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City

Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.C.A.No.25 of 2018

which has been dismissed by confirming the findings of the

learned Rent Controller and ordered for eviction of the

tenant. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition

is filed by the tenant.

07. It is contended by learned counsel for the

revision petitioner-tenant that the burden is on the

landlord to prove that the tenant failed to pay rents and

that the landlord is not in a habit of issuing any receipt for

payment of monthly rent and that tenant adduced oral and

documentary evidence to prove that he is regular in

payment of rents to the landlord but the same were not

considered by both the Courts below and that the Order of

the learned Rent Controller as well as the Judgment of the

learned Appellate Court suffers from illegalities and

irregularities and prayed this Court to allow this Civil

Revision Petition by setting aside the concurrent findings.

08. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-

landlord contended that the learned Rent Controller on

considering the arguments of the both sides and after

considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, rightly allowed the R.C., and the learned Chief

Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad also being first

Appellate Court analyzed all the aspects and dismissed the

appeal by confirming the findings of the learned Rent

Controller and ordered for eviction of the tenant.

Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent-landlord

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.

09. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the concurrent findings given by learned Principal Rent Controller, FAC Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, as well as learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, are liable to be set aside?

P O I N T:

10. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties

and perused the material available on record.

11. According to the landlord, there is rental

agreement dated 05.05.2015 executed between landlord

and tenant and the monthly rent was fixed at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per month and that enhancement of rent was

agreed at the rate of 10 % per annum and that tenant paid

rent for two months and thereafter committed default from

July, 2015 to December, 2016 for a period of 18 months

totaling to an amount of Rs.54,000/- and sought for

eviction of the tenant.

12. According to the tenant, he paid rents regularly

but the landlord asked him to vacate the premises and no

notice was served on tenant by petitioner seeking him to

vacate the premises. Tenant spent huge amounts of

Rs.8,00,000/- towards house repairs and to avoid the said

amount, the landlord is trying to evict the tenant from

schedule premises illegally.

13. As seen from the record, the jural relationship

of landlord and tenant between both the parties in respect

of the schedule premises is concerned, execution of Rental

Agreement dated 05.05.2015 by the parties and terms

thereof; the schedule premises comprises of four rooms

and out of which two rooms were in occupation of the

tenant and rest of two rooms portion was let out to other

tenant by the landlord; and the tenant deposited interest

free refundable security deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the

landlord at the time of inception, all the above aspects are

undisputed facts.

14. The landlord did not adduce any oral evidence

and got marked Ex.P1-Rental Agreement during the

evidence of RW1. RW1-Tenant deposed that he is in

occupation of schedule premises under Ex.P1 for monthly

rent @ Rs.3,000/- and that he has been regular in

payment of rents to the landlord. It is also deposed that he

spent huge amounts for repairs of schedule premises, on

the oral consent of landlord. He filed Exs.R1 and R2-bank

payslips under which Rs.5,500/- each were deposited into

the bank account of the landlord. During the course of

cross-examination, RW1 admitted that he used to visit the

house of landlord to handover the rent and that the

landlord let out the other two rooms to the neighbouring

tenants for Rs.2,750/-.

15. It is the case of the landlord that RW1 deposited

the rents under Exs.R1 and R2 each for Rs.5,500/- during

the demonetization as the tenant collected the rents from

neighbor tenants and the same was deposited under

Exs.R1 and R2. It is an admitted fact that the monthly

rent of schedule premises is Rs.3,000/- per month, which

comes to Rs.12,000/- for four months. But as seen from

Exs.R1 and R2 an amount of Rs.11,000/- was only

deposited. The rent of neighbouring tenants is Rs.2,750/-

per month, if the same is calculated for four months it

comes to Rs.11,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the

tenant that he deposited rent for schedule premises under

Exs.R1 and R2 is not believable. Moreover, it is admitted

by RW1 that he did not file any bank statement to show

that there was sufficient balance in his account for

depositing the said amount under Exs.R1 and R2.

16. It is the further case of tenant that he spent an

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards repairs of schedule

premises with the oral consent of landlord and that the

landlord is trying to evade the said amount by evicting the

tenant from the schedule premises. To substantiate the

said plea, the tenant did not file any bills or receipts and

there is no mention of nature of repairs and on what dates

he had undertaken such repairs in the counter. RW2 was

examined by tenant, who deposed that he knew both the

parties and he affirmed the terms of Ex.P1-Rental

Agreement. During the cross-examination, RW2 stated

that the tenant changed the tiled roof into cement sheet

room by spending Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. This

plea is introduced by RW2 in his evidence and there is no

mention of such plea in the counter or in the evidence of

RW1. Admittedly, the tenancy is under written agreement.

If really, tenant spent such huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/-

he ought to have filed any documentary evidence to that

effect.

17. It is apparent on the face of the record that the

landlord filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.62 of

2017 under Section 11 (1) of the Act before the learned

Rent Controller and the same was allowed on merits vide

Order dated 19.09.2017 directing the tenant to deposit the

arrears of monthly rent from July, 2015 to April, 2017 at

the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and the said Order was

not challenged by the tenant and the same has become

final. Tenant has complied with the above said order of the

learned Rent Controller.

18. In S.Sundaram Pillai and others v.

V.R.Pattabiraman and others 1, the Honourable Supreme

Court held that:

"54. Having, therefore, fully discussed the main scope and ambit of a proviso and an Explanation, we shall now proceed to elucidate the various provisions of the Act and other Acts. We have already discussed that although almost every State has its own Rent Act, neither the Explanation nor the statutory clause concerning the term 'wilful default' is mentioned therein. These Acts seem to proceed only on the simple word 'default' and perhaps to buttress their intention they have laid down certain guidelines to indicate the grounds of ejectment wherever a default takes place. Looking generally at

(1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 591

such Acts, they seem to have first provided statutorily a particular date or time when the tenant on being inducted under the contract of tenancy, is to pay the rent. Such a provision may or may not be against the contract of the tenancy and if it is to that extent, it overrides the contract. This, therefore, gives sufficient notice to any tenant inducted in any premises that he must pay the rent according to the yard-stick set out by the Act, failing which he runs the risk of being evicted for default. Some Acts, however, have provided a particular number of defaults to enable the Rent Controller or Court to find out whether such a default would entitle the landlord to get an order of eviction. There are some other Acts which have made rather ingenious and, if we may say so, apt provisions for expediting the process of eviction in case of default by providing that whenever a suit for eviction is filed against a tenant on the ground of default, the tenant in order to show his bona fides must first deposit the entire rent, arrears and cost in the court of the Rent Controller where the action is filed on the very first date of hearing, failing which the court or the authority concerned would be fully justified in striking down the defence and passing an order of eviction then and there. The dominant object of such a procedure is to put the tenants on their guard. It is true that such provisions are rather harsh but if a tenant goes on defaulting then there can be no other remedy but to make him pay the rent punctually unless some drastic step is taken. These Acts, therefore, strike a just balance between the rights of a landlord and those of a tenant. For deciding these cases, it is not necessary for us to go either into the ethics or philosophy of such a provision because we are concerned with statutes having different kinds of provisions."

19. In the above authority, the Honourable

Supreme Court of India made it clear that the Act seem to

have first provided statutorily a particular date or time

when the tenant on being inducted under the contract of

tenancy, is to pay the rent. Therefore, it gives sufficient

notice to any tenant inducted in any premises that he must

pay the rent according to the yard-stick set out by the Act,

failing which tenant runs the risk of being evicted for

default. In the case on hand also it is crystal clear that

there is default in payment of rents and only after direction

given by Rent Controller, some rent has been deposited.

20. In Jean Mare Daniel Bisch v. Larcher

Antonie Marie Jules Desire and Larcher Marie

Antonette Hortanse 2 wherein it was held by Madras High

Court that:

"It is a settled proposition of law that unless the concurrent finding is perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the same in the revision. Similarly, it cannot be construed as perverse finding, when the concurrent finding of the Courts below is according to law, based on evidence available on record. As the finding is based on evidence, as per law, this Court

(2011) 03 MAD CK 0047

cannot interfere with the same, by way of revisional jurisdiction and therefore, I am of the view that the revision is liable to be dismissed."

21. In view of the above discussion and having

regard to the settled principles of law laid down, this Court

is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings

recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as learned

Appellate Authority as there are no illegalities or

irregularities or perverse findings. Hence this Civil

Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of

merits.

22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. However, in order to save the tenant from

abrupt eviction, this Court grants him time upto

09.04.2024 for vacating the premises, subject to his filing

an undertaking on affidavit before the learned Rent

Controller within four weeks from today, incorporating the

following terms and strictly complying therewith:

(i) That on or before 09.04.2024, 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