Telangana High Court

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid vs Mohd. Vazir , Ateeq on 15 February, 2024

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1842, 2362 & 2440 of
                      2019
COMMON ORDER:

The parties in all these three Civil Revision Petitions

are one and the same, and the issue involved in all these

three matters is interlinked with each other, therefore,

these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by way

of this Common Order.

02. The Civil Revision Petition No.1842 of 2019 is

filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings

(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short 'the

Act') preferred by the Appellant-Tenant against the

Judgment and Decree dated 12.06.2019 passed in

R.C.A.No.18 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small

Causes Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Appellate Court')

wherein and whereby the Order and Decree dated

22.12.2017 in R.C.No.250 of 2011 passed by the learned III

Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court,

Hyderabad, (for short 'the Rent Controller') and the order

for eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises, was

confirmed.

03. The Civil Revision Petition No.2362 of 2019 is

filed under Section 22 of the Act, preferred by the

Appellant-Tenant against the Order dated 12.06.2019

passed in I.A.No.38 of 2019 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2018 by the

learned Appellate Court wherein the receive documents

petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (for short 'CPC') read with Section 20 (3) of the

Act, was dismissed.

04. The Civil Revision Petition No.2440 of 2019 is

filed under Section 22 of the Act, preferred by the

Appellant-Tenant against the Order dated 12.06.2019

passed in I.A.No.125 of 2019 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2018 by the

learned Appellate Court wherein the receive documents

petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC read with

Section 20 (3) of the Act, was dismissed.

05. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the

parties will be referred as per their array before the learned

Rent Controller.

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

The petitioner is the co-owner and landlord of the

schedule premises i.e., mulgi No.5-3-844/1, admeasuring

358 Sq.feet., Ground floor, situated at Malakunta Road,

Goshamahal, Hyderabad and respondent is the tenant of

the schedule premises.

07. According to the petitioner-landlord, there is

lease deed dated 15.04.2010 between petitioner and

respondent. Rent payable is Rs.1,860/- per month.

Respondent is doing business of Sanitary goods and water

meters in the schedule premises. Respondent paid rent for

the month of May, 2010 on 06.07.2010 and failed to pay

rent from the month of June, 2010 to May, 2011 for 12

months amounting to Rs.22,320/- inspite of repeated

demands by petitioner. Respondent issued a cheque dated

23.11.2010 towards rent for the month of June, 2010 to

September, 2010 but the same was dishonoured.

08. It is further the case of the petitioner that as

per clause-6 of lease deed dated 15.04.2010 the tenant

shall pay municipal property tax and handover the receipts

to the landlord but the respondent intentionally violated

the terms of lease deed and committed default in payment

of property tax and monthly rents. Hence, petitioner

sought for eviction of respondent-tenant.

09. Respondent-tenant filed counter contending

that one Mr.H.M.Vazeer was the owner of the schedule

premises and the father of respondent Mohd.Yahiya

obtained schedule premises on monthly rent in the year

1953 and since then running business in the name and

style of "M/s.Fazal Water Meter and Sanitary Works". After

death of said H.M.Vazeer, his three sons became joint

owners and the said tenancy has been attorned and father

of respondent became their tenant and paid rent regularly.

In the year 1983, after partition, one M.A.Ghani became

owner of the schedule premises and tenancy has been

attorned and father of respondent became their tenant and

paid rent regularly. The father of respondent died in the

year 2008 leaving behind four daughters and three sons as

his legal heirs. As such, the business of Mohd.Yahiya has

become joint business of all his legal heirs and they

become joint tenants and are running business in the

schedule property. As such it is necessary to implead all

the legal heirs of Mohd.Yahiya as parties to the petition but

the petitioner did not made them as parties. They are

regularly paying rents. Since the inception of tenancy, the

landlord used to pay the property tax. On 03.05.2010

petitioner collected rents for the months of July, 2009 to

March, 2010. On 06.07.2010 respondent paid rent for the

month of April and May, 2010 and petitioner issued single

receipt to that effect. Respondent issued cheque dated

23.11.2010 towards payment of rent for June, 2010 to

January, 2011. Petitioner informed respondent that the

said cheque was misplaced. On 02.12.2010 respondent

paid an amount of Rs.14,880/- towards rent from June to

January, 2011 but the cheque was not returned by

petitioner. On 11.04.2011 respondent paid rent for the

months February, 2011 to March, 2011 and April, 2011 to

August, 2011 in advance and issued receipt. Further,

respondent admitted clause-6 of the lease deed and that

respondent paid an amount of Rs.656/- towards property

tax in respect of schedule premises for the year 2010-2011.

Thereafter, respondent received demand bill for the year

2013-2014 for Rs.33,656/- without any notice for such

enhancement from GHMC. Respondent submitted a letter

dated 30.03.2014 enclosing a cheque of Rs.1,968/- as per

earlier tax. Hence, respondent sought for dismissal of the

petition.

10. To prove the case of petitioner-owner, PW1 was

examined and Ex.P1 was marked. On behalf of

respondent-tenant, tenant himself was examined as RW1

and got marked Exs.R1 to R29.

11. 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.18 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, the Civil Revision Petition

No.1842 of 2019 is filed by the tenant.

12. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the concurrent findings given by learned Rent Controller as well as learned Appellate Authority for eviction of respondent, are liable to be set aside?

P O I N T:

14. It is contended by learned counsel for the

revision petitioner-tenant that the tenant has been paying

rents for occupation of schedule premises regularly since

from the date of inception i.e., from the year 1953 and that

the father of respondent died in the year 2008 leaving

behind four daughters and three sons as his legal heirs

and as such, the business of Mohd.Yahiya has become

joint business of all his legal heirs and they become joint

tenants and are running business in the schedule property

and that the petitioner-owner failed to implead all the legal

heirs of Mohd.Yahiya as parties to RC. They are regularly

paying rents without any default. As cash in hand is not

available, tenant issued cheque dated 23.11.2010 towards

payment of rent for June, 2010 to January, 2011, which

was misplaced by owner. Thereafter, on 02.12.2010

respondent paid an amount of Rs.14,880/- towards rent

from June to January, 2011 but the cheque was not

returned by owner. On 11.04.2011 respondent paid rent

for the months February, 2011 to March, 2011 and April,

2011 to August, 2011 in advance and issued receipt. As

per clause-6 of the lease deed the tenant paid an amount of

Rs.656/- towards property tax in respect of schedule

premises for the year 2010-2011. Without any notice, the

GHMC enhanced property tax and a demand bill for the

year 2013-2014 for Rs.33,656/- was received by tenant, for

which tenant submitted a letter dated 30.03.2014

enclosing a cheque of Rs.1,968/- as per earlier tax.

15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner-tenant that the tenant filed

I.A.No.38 of 2019 and I.A.No.125 of 2019 in R.C.A.No.18 of

2018 before the learned Appellate Court, which is the

subject matter of Civil Revision Petition Nos.2362 of 2019

and 2440 of 2019 respectively, and sought for receiving of

documents i.e., copy of Order dated 25.01.2019 issued by

GHMC in File No.171/C-3/TC14/GHMC/2019, office copy

of W.P.No.44080 of 2018, copy of order dated 01.02.2019

passed by this Court and letter addressed to the Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court and property tax payment receipt

dated 06.03.2019 and that said additional evidence was

not considered by the learned Appellate Court and

dismissed both the applications. It is further contended

that the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate

Court failed to consider the fact that annual tax for mulgi

was Rs.656/- per annum which was enhanced to

Rs.9656/- per annum without any notice by GHMC and

that learned Appellate Court did not take on record the

additional documents filed by tenant in I.A.No.38 of 2019

and I.A.No.125 of 2019 and passed the impugned

Judgment. Hence, 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.

16. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-

owner 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

Appellate Court, 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.

17. As seen from the record, the jural relationship

of landlord and tenant between both the parties in respect

of the schedule premises is concerned, the father of

respondent Mohd.Yahiya obtained the schedule premises

in the year 1953; there is lease/rental agreement dated

15.04.2010 and clause-6 of the said rental agreement, the

tenant has to pay the property tax pertaining to the

schedule premises; prior to 15.04.2010 the property taxes

were being paid by owner, thus all the above aspects are

undisputed facts.

18. It is the specific contention of the learned

counsel for the tenant that one Mr.H.M.Vazeer was the

owner of the schedule premises and the father of

respondent Mohd.Yahiya obtained schedule premises on

monthly rent in the year 1953 and since then running

business in the name and style of "M/s.Fazal Water Meter

and Sanitary Works". After death of said H.M.Vazeer, his

three sons became joint owners and the said tenancy has

been attorned and father of respondent became their

tenant and paid rent regularly. In the year 1983, after

partition, one M.A.Ghani became owner of the schedule

premises and the father of respondent became their tenant.

The father of respondent died in the year 2008 leaving

behind four daughters and three sons as his legal heirs.

The business of Mohd.Yahiya has become joint business of

all his legal heirs and they become joint tenants and are

running business in the schedule property, therefore, it is

necessary to implead all the legal heirs of Mohd.Yahiya as

parties to the petition but the owner did not made them as

parties to the RC and that the main RC is liable to be

dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder of the

necessary parties.

19. The definition of 'landlord' under Section 2 (vi)

of the Act, "landlord‟ means the owner of a building and

includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive

the rent of a building whether on his own account or on

behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others

or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or

guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to

receive the rent; if the building were let a tenant. The

definition of 'tenant' defined under Section 2 (ix) of the Act,

"tenant‟ means any person by whom or on whose account

rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving

spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant who

had been living with the tenant in the building as a

member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant

and a person continuing in possession after the

termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not

include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its

tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees

in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of

rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local

authority.

20. In the present case on hand, the petitioner-

owner is shown co-owner and landlord of the schedule

premises and the said fact is not disputed by the tenant.

Admittedly, the petitioner-owner collected rents and tenant

paid rents to petitioner-owner till they fell default.

Therefore, in view of above definitions, a person who is

entitled to receive the rent for a building whether on his

own account or on behalf of himself or on behalf of third

party is a landlord and any person by whom or on whose

account rent is payable for a building is tenant.

21. It is the case of the owner that the tenant has

committed willful default in payment of rents for the

months of June, 2010 to May, 2011 amounting to

Rs.22,320/- and that the tenant has not paid property tax

as agreed under rental agreement and the tenant is liable

to be evicted from the schedule premises. Whereas, it is

the case of the tenant that the owner used to collect rents

in respect of schedule premises for once in three or four

months and that on 02.12.2010 the tenant paid

Rs.14,880/- towards rent from June, 2010 to January,

2011 and that on 11.04.2011 and that the owner collected

monthly rents for the months of February, 2011 to March,

2011 and April, 2011 to August, 2011 in advance and

issued receipts for the same. On this aspect, the learned

Rent Controller on evaluating the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, had came to conclusion that

there is no default in payment of rents by tenant. The said

aspect was not contested by the owner in the appeal before

the learned Appellate Court or in this revision before this

Court. But the appeal was contested only on the allegation

of willful default in payment of property taxes to the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. So also, in this

Civil Revision Petition.

22. PW1 stated that he obtained Ex.P1 property tax

due details from internet in respect of the schedule

premises and came to know that the tenant is in arrears of

property tax from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014 amounting to

Rs.39,030/- along with interest levied by GHMC for non-

payment of property tax. Lease deed/rental agreement

dated 15.04.2010 there is an obligation on the tenant to

pay the municipal taxes under clause-6. RW1 admitted

that as per clause-6 of the said lease deed the liability of

payment of property taxes was imposed upon the tenant

and the tenant paid property tax for the year 2010-2011.

23. The tenant filed two I.A.Nos.38 of 2019 and 125

of 2019 for receiving some documents under Order 41 Rule

27 of CPC as additional evidence and the same were

dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, which are

subject matters of C.R.P.No.2440 and 2362 of 2019 before

this Court. The documents are the copy of Order dated

25.01.2019 issued by GHMC in File No.171/C-

3/TC14/GHMC/2019 reducing the tax from Rs.9,656/-

per annum to Rs.4,802/- per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2015,

subjection to withdrawal of W.P.No.44080 of 2018, which

was filed challenging the enhanced property tax without

any notice and sought for receiving of the above documents

along with copy of withdrawal order dated 01.02.2019

passed by this Court and letter addressed to the Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court, and to show that he paid property

tax, he filed property tax payment receipt dated

06.03.2019.

24. It is apparent on the face of record that

additional evidence documents filed by the tenant are

subsequent to the filing of RC and during the pendency of

the appeal. Even if the above documents are taken on

record as additional evidence, they are of no help to the

case of the tenant to substantiate that he has not

committed any willful default in payment of property tax

from 2011 to 2014 and thereafter.

25. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited., v. Dilbahar Singh 1 the Honourable Supreme

Court of India held that:

"45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,

Civil Appeal Nos.6177 of 2004 and batch decided by the Honourable Supreme Court on 27.08.2014

correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re- appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."

26. In the above authority, it is made clear the

consideration or examination of the evidence by the High

Court in revisional jurisdiction under the Act is confined to

find out that finding of facts recorded by the Rent

Controller/Appellate Authority is according to law and does

not suffer from any error of law. If finding of fact recorded

by Courts below is perverse or has been arrived at without

consideration of the material evidence or such finding is

based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is

grossly erroneous, if allowed to stand, it would result in

gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because

it is not treated as a finding according to law, in that event,

the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set

aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The

High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or

legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned

before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the

regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the

impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not

exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or

re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on

facts.

27. In view of the above discussion and having

regard to the settled principle of law, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there are no illegalities or

irregularities in the concurrent findings given by the

learned Rent Controller as well as learned Appellate

Authority and this Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be

dismissed as devoid of merits.

28. In the result, all the three Civil Revision

Petitions are dismissed. However, in order to save the

tenant from abrupt eviction, this Court grants time upto

15.04.2024 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 15.04.2024, 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