Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 1041
2009 (2) ALT 103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
Khursheed Sultana and others - Appellants
Versus
Mir Asif Ali and others - Respondents
C.R.P. No.1430 of 2007 and Batch
Decided on : 08-12-2008.
Mr. K.K.Waghray, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mohd. Nasarulla Khan and Mr. P. Srinivas, Counsel for the Respondents.
Headnote:a) A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Sections 9 and 8 (5)- Where the petitioner tenants filed a petition under Section 9 separately in view of receiving conflicting claims to a portion of the rent after withdrawing the earlier petition for deposit of rent on the refusal of the earlier landlady to receive the rents, the order dismissing the petition is not proper.
b) A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Section 9 -While disposing the petition under Section 9 filed in view of receiving conflicting claim with regard to rent by third parties, examining the veracity of those claims on merits of the case by the appellate court is not warranted.
c) A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Sections 10 (2)(i), 8 (5) and 9 - A tenant who filed petitions for deposit of rent in the court, first under Section 8(5) and later under section 9 and where the amount so deposited in the court, can not be said to have committed willful default in payment of rent and evicted on that ground.
d) A.P. BUilDINGS (lEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Sections 10 (2)(vi) and 9 :Where the tenants received a conflicting claim as to the receipt of a portion of rent from third parties and they have filed a petition for deposit of rent in the court, the tenants can not be said to have malfidely denied the title of the landlords and they can not be evicted on the ground, especially when the landlords have not raised that ground in their eviction petition.
e) A.P. BUilDINGS (lEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960, Section 10 (3)(a) (iii)(a) and 10 (3(c) - Bonafide requirement as a ground for eviction of tenant - Specific pleading that the landlords are running their business of cloth sales in a rented shop and they want tto shift that business and also a open a super bazaar in their own premises and they require the entire premises including the mulgis let out to the tenants.- No serious contest of the plea by tenant - Landlords are entitled to eviction of tenants.
This batch of revisions is concerned with the correctness of the common judgment of lower appellate Court on tile eviction petitions filed by the landlords and the petitions under Section 9 filed by the tenants. These cases covered two different tenants but the same landlords. Both the tenants had filed Section 9 petitions under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act').
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as 'landlords' and though there are two tenants of two portions, collectively, they are referred to as 'tenants' as facts in respect of both matters are similar. The exhibit numbers, referred to hereinafter, are exhibits marked in R.C.No.698 of 1999, which is one of the eviction petitions under consideration filed by the landlords herein against Mir Yousuf Ali.
3. The chronological events which led to filing of these revision petitions are set out as under:
(a) One Mrs. Khursheed Sultana was the original owner of building bearing M. NO.20-4-226/1/1(Old No.20-4-226/1), situated at Motigalli, Khilwath Road, Hyderabad, and its sub numbers, which comprise of one residential portion and five mulgies (shops). Out of the said five mulgies, premises NO.226/1/1 is in occupation of tenant, Asif Ali and the other tenant, Yousuf Ali was in occupation of adjacent mulgi. The rents payable are RS.250/- and RS.300/- per month, respectively. Further, Yousuf Ali had paid Rs.22,000/- as deposit, whereas Asif Ali paid Rs.15,000/- as deposit to the previous landlady. Both the tenants had filed petitions under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rents on 24-03-1999 being R.C.Nos.143 and 144 of 1999. The said petition, R.C.No.143 of 1999 is marked as EX.P-8. They had sought permission to deposit rent from January 1999 to March 1999 onwards, on the ground that the landlady was not receiving the rent.
(b) Prior thereto, the said landlady had sold the entire building to the present landlords, petitioners herein, under six different sale deeds, Exs.P-2 to P-7, dated 16-10-1998. The previous landlady Khursheed Sultana, had filed a counter in R.C.C.Nos.143 and 144 of 1999, referred to above, stating that she has sold the entire building in favour of the present landlords in October, 1998 and both the tenants were informed of the said sale immediately and were directed to pay the rents from Juanuary, 1999 onwards to the new landlords and opposed the said deposit of rent petition. The said counter of landlady is marked as EX.P-9.
(c) The present landlords gave a legal notice, Ex.P-10, dated 14-10-1999 to the tenants once again attorning the tenancy and calling upon the tenants to pay the arrears of rent. Under reply of the tenants, Ex. P-11, dated 22-10-1999, the tenants denied that the landlords are joint owners of the property as mentioned in the notice and required the landlords to furnish attested true copies of the alleged sale deeds and reserved their right to give a detailed reply.
(d) The tenants received another notice, Ex.R-2, dated 28-10-1999, from one Md. Farooq, asserting that he is an agreement holder of same property to the extent of 1/6th share and required the tenants to pay proportionate rent to him. Under Ex.R-3, dated 09-11-1999, the tenants replied to the said notice refuting the claim made by the said Md. Farooq.
(e) Meanwhile on 01-11-1999, under Ex.R-5, another claimant by name Mrs. Tahseen Sultana, issued a similar notice to the tenants asserting that she is 1/6th'share holder in the property and required the tenants to pay the proportionate rent to her. Under reply of the tenants, Ex.R-6, dated 15-11-1999, the tenants refuted her claim also.
(f) Meanwhile it appears that Md. Farooq who had given Ex.H-2, notice, had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4261 of 1999 to enforce his agreement. The said suit is said to be pending.
(g) While so on 19-11-1999, the tenants filed Ex.P-12, memo, in Section 8 petitions, that
