Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 70
2007 (2) ALT 491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V. ESWARAIAH, J.
BansilalYadav - Petitioner.
Versus
Suraj Chand Bhagat and others - Respondent.
C.R.P. Nos. 4953 to 4956, 4960, 4973 to 4976 of 2006
Decided on 15-12-2006.
Advocate appeared.
Mr. R. Chandrasekhara Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Respondents.
Headnote:
Transfer Property Act – Section 5,10,151,105 – Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – Section 10 (2)(i), 22 – Limitation Act –Section 5–Code of Civil Procedure – Section 10 –Tenants Restoration issue – Wiful Default – Eviction –Landlord tiled eviction petitions seeking eviction of the tenants alleging that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the ground floor property having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated and at the time of purchase there were some tenants in the mulgies and the portion, which was under the occupation of the tenants was given by way of symbolic possession and also by way of attornment of tenancy –Tenants were in possession of the said mulgies on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- and tenant was in possession of the mulgi on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and the rents have been paid to the previous landlady upto the date of purchase, the rents have been paid to the landlord and the tenants did not pay the rents from June 2003 to January 2004 i.e., for a period of 8 months – Therefore, it is stated, that there is wilful default in payment of rents on the part of the tenants – Held, Court is of opinion that there was no proper service of summons and in fact, the relationship of landlord and tenants is yet to be proved as the landlord having taken a specific plea that the tenants have paid rent from the date of purchase of the said premises till May 2003 and that they did not pay the rents from June 2003 to January 2004, absolutely no rental receipts have been filed either in the eviction petitions or in the applications to set aside the ex parte order – In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the court is of the opinion that the tenants are entitled for the restoration of possession – It is stated that the applications filed by the tenants for restoration of possession are pending – The tenants ought to have filed a simple application straightway under Rule 8(3) of the Rules for restoration of possession – The Rent Controller without properly appreciating the evidence on record erroneously dismissed the applications without any justification – Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and now that the ex parte orders have been set aside and the eviction petitions have been restored, on the applications filed or to be filed by the tenants under Rule 8(3) of the Rules, the possession also shall be restored in favour of the tenants –Court do not see any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order under the revisions –Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed
All these civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) arise out of the common judgment dated 1-8-2006 passed in RANos.272 to 277 of 2005 and 46 to 48 of 2006 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner in all these revision petitions is one and the same and the respondents are three different tenants viz. Hukmichand Bhagat, tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.15-8-182; Md Aslam, tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.15-8-183 and Suraj Chand Bhagat, tenant in respect of the portion of the premises bearing No.15-8-207 and 208. The old numbers of the said mulgies bearing Nos.15-8-182 and 15-8-183 also correspond to old Nos.15-8-207 and 208. The portion of the mulgies occupied by the tenants viz. Hukmichand Bhagat and Md. Aslam, is admeasuring 18 x 19 respectively and the portion occupied by third tenant viz., Suraj Chand Bhagat is admeasuring 6 x 19 and all the mulgies are situated at Sikander Bazar, Opp. Fish Market, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the landlord and the respondents are hereinafter referred to as the tenants.
4. The eviction petitions in R.C. Nos.4 to 6 of 2004 filed by the landlord under Section 10 (2)(i) of the Act on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, were allowed ex parte by orders dated 16-2-2004 directing the tenants to vacate the suit premises within one month and thereafter the tenants were evicted from the premises occupied by them on 5-4-2004. The tenants filed three different applications in I.A.Nos.161, 163 and 164 of 2004 in R.C.Nos.4 to 6 of 2004 respectively on 12-4-2004 to grant injunction orders restraining the landlord from demolishing, changing or altering the structure of the mulgies and in the said applications injunctions were granted on 12-4-2004. The tenants filed applications in I.A.Nos.160, 162 and 165 of 2004 in R.C.Nos.4 to 6 of 2004 respectively under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the petitions to ·set aside the ex parte orders dated 16-2-2004 and also filed IANos.190, 191 and 192 of 2004 in R.C.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2004 respectively to set aside the ex parte eviction orders dated 16-2-2004. All the applications were dismissed by different orders dated 17-10-2005 by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same the tenants preferred respectively appeals in RANosA6 to 48 of 2006 and 272 to 277 of 2005 and all the appeals were allowed by common judgment dated 1-8-2006. Assailing the said common judgment these revision petitions have been filed by the landlord.
5. The landlord tiled eviction petitions in R.C.Nos.4 to 6 of 2004 on 7-1-2004 seeking eviction of the tenants alleging that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the ground floor property to an extent of 1020 sq. feet under M.C.H.No.15-8-207 and 208 having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 12-6-2001 and at the time of purchase there were some tenants in the mulgies as well as some open land was given physical possession to him and the portion, which was under the occupation of the tenants was given by way of symbolic possession and also by way of attornment of tenancy. The tenants in R.C.Nos.4 and 5 of 2004 were in possession of the said mulgies on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- and tenant in R.C.No.6 of 2004 was in possession of the mulgi on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and the rents have been paid to the previous landlady Rahmatunnisa upto 11-6-2001 and from 12-6-2001 i.e., the date of purchase, the rents have been paid to the landlord upto May 2003 and the tenants did not pay the rents from June 2003 to January 2004 i.e., for a period of 8 months. Whenever the tenants paid the rents, the landlord issued Kaccha receipts and in spite of the request to pay the arrears of rents the tenants did not pay the rents. Therefore, it is stated, that there is wilful default in pa
