Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 915
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Syed Abdul Wahab
Vs.
Dr. Wilfred DSouza
Civil Revision Petition No. 1112 of 2008
Decided on : 24-09-2010
Counsel for petitioner: Sri B. Sreerama Krishna
Counsel for respondent: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy
Headnote:
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 20 - 10(3)(iii)(b) - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - Revision is directed against order passed in by learned Additional Chief Judge City Small Causes Court under Section 20 of the A.P. Control Act whereby and whereunder appellate authority has reversed order passed by II Additional Rent Controller in and allowed appeal filed by landlord - parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before Rent Controller for sake of convenience - facts of case in brief are as follows - Petitioner is owner of property bearing municipal situated at Bank Street - Now we are concerned with an extent - feet of property bearing municipal - Respondent is tenant of petition schedule property - Originally total extent of petition schedule - Held, Court to do justice to the parties - Though in some cases there may be a specific prayer or not, but where the Court feels that in the interest of justice and in the interest of both the parties if certain directions are required I feel that the Court is empowered to give such directions. It has to be seen that in the petition the petitioner while praying that a direction be given to the respondent to vacate and handover the vacant and physical possession of the petition schedule property also prayed to pass such other order or further orders as the Court deems fit and proper for which the petitioner is entitled - When Court feels that parties are entitled to certain reliefs I feel that Court is empowered to pass any such other or further orders as Court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case - Since the need of the petitioner is that his newly constructed premises must have a passage or sufficient width with sufficient height and the need of the respondent is that he must have a shop facing towards main road, these two requirements are to be fulfilled by giving specific directions to the parties - Petition is allowed
This revision is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in R.A. No. 405 of 1999 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has reversed the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C. No. 161 of 1997 and allowed the appeal filed by the landlord.
2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing municipal No.4-1-315, 4-1-326, 4-1-320, 4-1-321, 4-1-322, 4-1-323, 4-1-324 4-1-326 and 4-1-426, situated at Troop bazaar, Bank Street, Hyderabad. Now we are concerned with an extent of 202.65 sq. feet of the property bearing municipal No.4-1-426 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition schedule property). The respondent is the tenant of the petition schedule property. Originally, the total extent of the petition schedule mulgi No.4-1-426 was 244.64 sq. ft., and out of which an extent of 202.65 sq.ft., was allotted to the share of the petitioner and the remaining area i.e., 42 sq. ft., was allotted to one Prem Shanker Asthana. The agreed rent of Rs.250/- per month is being shared by the petitioner and Prem Shanker Asthana at Rs.207/- and Rs.43/- per month respectively and there is no dispute whatsoever between the petitioner and the said Prem Shanker Asthana. Though there was earlier litigation between the parties, when the respondent filed R.C. No.242 of 1989 for deposit of the rents and when the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No.4345 of 1985 on the file of the III Additional Judge alleging that the respondent caused damage to the property, but we are not concerned with that litigation at present. Since the petitioner himself filed a memo withdrawing the grounds in respect of default and damage to the property, now we are concerned only with regard to the issue of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner for the purpose of providing a passage to the entire complex.
4. It is not in dispute that the properties are situated in a prime locality of Hyderabad city adjacent to the road leading from Abids to Koti via Toorp Bazar. It is also not in dispute that there is a lane towards the rear side of the building on the western side of the premises. However, the width of that lane seems to be not consistent and in some places it is 10 feet and in some other places it is 17 feet and the width increases while going towards further west and may be even 20 feet at some places. The petitioner applied for sanctioned plan to the municipal authorities and though the present passage is only 3 feet towards east i.e., towards main road from Abids to Koti (called as Bank street) the petitioner has shown 17 feet wide passage in his plan while applying for permission to the municipal authorities. It appears that there were about eight or nine other tenants in the premises, but they had vacated the premises enabling the petitioner to construct the complex. The petitioner had constructed the cellar, ground, first floor and second floor. Thus, a multi storied building has been constructed. The building of former Chief Minister Sri N.T. Rama Rao and the building of Mr. P.S. Asthana are on either side of this property. The petitioner's further case is that the proposed 17 feet wide passage is required for ingress and egress and unless such a wide passage is provided it would not be convenient for ingress and egress into the multi storied building. His further case is that due to non-cooperation of the respondent, he is unable to handover the premises to the bank authorities and, as a result of which, he has incurred loss of Rs.3800/- per day. It is also his case that he has obtained loan from the Punjab Nati
