Telangana High Court
Anjuman E Moin Ul Akhwan, vs Mir Zafar Ali on 11 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1823 of 2014
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in
R.A.No.238 of 2010 by the learned Additional Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition schedule
property is a mulgi (shop/commercial unit) that forms part of
a historical building called 'Darulshifa' in Hyderabad. During
the reign of Asafia Kingdom, this building's center was used
as an Ashurkhana, maintained by the Nizam. The Asafia
Kingdom constituted a society named Anjuman-e-Moinul
Akwan on 15th Ramzaan-ul-Mubarak 1367 Hijri, which was
subsequently registered in the year 1958 (Registration No.3 of
1958). This society maintained the property and leased out
mulgies facing the road to various tenants. According to the
petitioner society, represented by Mir Saber Ali (claiming to be
the Secretary), elections were held in the year 2004 for the
Managing Committee where he was elected as Secretary.
SKS,J
When he requested respondent No.2 (Karrar Hussain Khan) to
enhance the rent and execute a fresh rental deed, the tenant
refused. Consequently, the society issued multiple notices:
first in July 2006 demanding arrears of rent (to which the
tenant replied that rent was being deposited in O.P.No.235 of
1991), then on 18.12.2006 requesting details of deposits, and
another on 01.08.2007 after discovering that respondent No.1
was no longer occupying the premises. Respondent No.2
replied on 11.09.2007 stating that respondent No.3 was in
occupation. A final notice dated 07.03.2008 was issued to
both respondent Nos.2 and 3, to which respondent No.2
replied on 02.04.2008 claiming he was surrendering tenancy
and action should be taken against respondent No.3 as a sub-
tenant. This led to the eviction petition, which the Rent
Controller ultimately allowed on 25.6.2010, ordering eviction
of all three respondents within one (1) month.
3. Aggrieved by the eviction order in R.C.No.391 of 2008
dated 25.6.2010, Mir Zafar Ali/appellant (respondent No.3 in
the original case) filed an appeal vide R.A.No.238 of 2010
under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,
Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The appellant contended that
SKS,J
there was no jural relationship between him and petitioner
herein (Anjuman-e-Moin ul Akwan) as Mir Saber Ali had no
legitimate title to claim as landlord. He argued that the 2004
election was not conducted as per the directions of this Court
in C.R.P.No.4843 of 1999, and no elections were held
thereafter. The respondent No.1 herein claimed he was a
tenant who had obtained the premises from the then-
Secretary, late Nizamuddin, and had been depositing rent as
per orders in I.A.3511 of 1994 in O.P.No.235 of 1991.
Respondent No.1 herein further stated that he had entered
into a partnership agreement with respondent No.3 herein,
who was managing the business during his absence from
India. A crucial argument presented was that the petition
schedule premises was declared a wakf property as per the
Gazette dated 09.02.1989, and according to G.O.Ms.No.380
dated 06.05.1970, provisions of the Rent Control Act are not
applicable to wakf properties. Respondent No.1 herein also
highlighted that Saber Ali failed to produce any document
proving his authority to represent the society. During the
appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.375 of 2010 seeking to
introduce a certified copy of an order (I.A.No.960 of 2011 in
I.A.No.650 of 2011 in O.P.No.235 of 91) which had previously
SKS,J
ruled that Mir Saber Ali was not authorized to represent the
society. After examining all evidence, the Additional Chief
Judge concluded that Mir Saber Ali had failed to establish his
authority to represent the society, and that the property
appeared to be wakf property exempt from Rent Control Act
provisions. Consequently, on June 28, 2013, the appeal was
allowed, setting aside the eviction order and dismissing the
original petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision
Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the
respondents, none appeared on their behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order of the lower appellate Court is fundamentally erroneous,
illegal, and unjust, wrongfully reversing the well-reasoned
judgment of the trial Court without proper appreciation of
evidence. He further submitted that the Court misinterpreted
crucial evidence regarding the existence and identity of the
Society, incorrectly concluding there were two different
societies with variations in address despite clear Registration
SKS,J
Extracts proving otherwise. Learned counsel further
submitted that the trial Court misapplied the legal precedent
from 2002(6) ALT 268, which deals with non-existent
societies, whereas in the present case, the society indisputably
exists with proper authorization documents on record. Despite
the petitioner filing cogent evidence through Exhibits P-1, P-
13, and P-14 to establish his representative status, the lower
appellate Court unreasonably shifted the burden of proof and
failed to appreciate these registered documents which had no
rebuttal evidence against them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there
are significant procedural lapses in the approach of the lower
appellate Court. Despite acknowledging that periodical
elections of the society had occurred, the Court failed to
provide any opportunity to present evidence on this matter.
The counsel highlighted that after allowing the petition for
additional evidence, the Court ought to have either permitted
the parties to lead further evidence or remanded the matter
for proper consideration. The finding that the order in
I.A.No.960 of 2011 operates as res judicata was challenged as
legally untenable, particularly as C.R.P.No.4967 of 2011 is
SKS,J
still pending against that order, and principles of res judicata
do not apply to interlocutory orders. He further contended
that the conclusion of the Court regarding the property being
Wakf Property - making the Rent Control case not
maintainable - was wholly improper since the referenced
Gazette was neither exhibited nor part of the trial Court
record. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order
of the lower appellate Court by allowing this Civil Revision
Petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the material
available on record, it is evident that there is a fundamental
procedural lapse in the order of the lower Appellate Court.
The finding that the petition schedule property is a wakf
property was arrived at without proper evidentiary foundation.
A meticulous examination of the record reveals that neither in
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nor in the
evidence adduced before the Rent Controller was there any
mention about the petition schedule property being a wakf
property. The lower Appellate Court erroneously relied solely
on the written arguments of the appellant wherein it was
SKS,J
contended that the petition schedule property is part of a
building declared as wakf property as per the Gazette dated
09.02.1989.
8. This Court observes with concern that the lower
appellate Court proceeded to determine a substantive
jurisdictional issue based on a pleading that was not placed
before the Rent Controller at the first instance. The
fundamental principles of natural justice demand that such
material facts, which strike at the root of jurisdiction, must be
properly pleaded, proved and adjudicated upon with due
opportunity to all parties. The lower appellate Court, while
referring to the Gazette notification, did not ensure its proper
marking as evidence, nor did it remand the matter to the Rent
Controller for receiving evidence on this crucial aspect.
9. Furthermore, the lower appellate Court marked Ex.R22
without affording any opportunity to the revision petitioner to
contest whether the petition schedule property is indeed a
wakf property. Such a procedure is not in accordance with
established principles of law. When a jurisdictional fact is
being considered for the first time at the appellate stage, the
SKS,J
proper course would have been to remand the matter back to
the Rent Controller to receive evidence on that specific aspect.
10. This Court also notes that despite the observation of the
lower appellate Court regarding the property being wakf
property, there is no claim from the Wakf Board regarding the
subject property. No dispute exists between the Wakf Board
and the petitioner managing committee with respect to this
property. Significantly, the respondent herein admitted in his
cross-examination before the Rent Controller that he is the
tenant of the petitioner society, and Exs.P17 to P20 (rent
receipts) were marked to demonstrate that respondent had
paid rents to the petitioner society.
11. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the lower
appellate Court on Ex.R22 to conclude that the Rent
Controller had no jurisdiction is not in accordance with law.
The established landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties, as evidenced by the respondent's own admission and
the rent receipts, cannot be negated without proper
adjudication on the nature of the property after giving
adequate opportunity to both sides to lead evidence.
SKS,J
12. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the order of the
lower Appellate Court and deems it liable to be set aside,
thereby confirming the order of the Rent Controller which was
passed after proper appreciation of evidence regarding the
existence of sub-tenancy and willful default in payment of rent
by the tenant.
13. In view of the foregoing, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in
R.A.No.238 of 2010 by the learned Additional Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 11.06.2025
SAI
