Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
Cheela Narayanarao and Another – Petitioners
Vs.
R. Ajay Kumar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2521 of 2016
Decided On : 08-07-2016
EVICTION OF TENANT - LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP - BONA-FIDE REQUIREMENT - SUBLETTING - RENT CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 10(2)(II)(A), 10(3)(A)(III)(B) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 109 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 21 RULE 35 - REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT, 1960 - HELD, THE PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SEEK EVICTION OF THE RESPONDENT-TENANT FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL BONA-FIDE REQUIREMENT AND SUBLETTING OF THE PREMISES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as landlords, filed a petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rent Control Act), seeking a direction to the respondent-tenant to vacate and deliver vacant, peaceful, physical and legal possession of the petition schedule premises to them. The petitioners claimed to be the absolute owners of the premises by virtue of a Will executed by their grandmother in their favour on 10.12.2006. The respondent-tenant denied the allegations contending that the petitioners were not his landlords and neither had he ever paid rent to them nor had they claimed rent at any time as owners of the subject property.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court held that the petitioners, who were the grandsons of the original owner Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi, were entitled to receive rents from the respondent; the petitioners had also proved that their requirement of the subject property, to commence textile and readymade garment business, was bona-fide; they had also proved that the respondent had sublet the ground floor of the subject property to Saheli Suits; and, on these grounds, the respondent-tenant was liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant from the subject property on the ground of personal bona-fide requirement and subletting of the premises? 2. Whether the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court erred in holding that the petitioners were the landlords of the subject property and that the respondent-tenant was liable to be evicted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant from the subject property on the ground of personal bona-fide requirement and subletting of the premises. The Court observed that the petitioners had become the owners of the subject property by virtue of the Will executed in their favour by their grandmother and that they were entitled, as the landlords, to institute proceedings, for eviction of the respondent-tenant under the Act, before the Rent Controller. The Court further observed that the respondent-tenant had sublet the premises to Saheli Suits without permission of the petitioners-landlords and that this was a ground for eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Rent Control Act. 2. The Court held that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court did not err in holding that the petitioners were the landlords of the subject property and that the respondent-tenant was liable to be evicted. The Court observed that the petitioners had proved their title to the property by virtue of the Will and that the respondent-tenant had failed to establish that the Will was not genuine or that the petitioners were not the landlords of the subject property.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and held that the order of the Appellate Court directing the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the subject premises did not necessitate interference.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No. 192 of 2015 dated 06.04.2016, dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant against the order of the Additional Rent Control, Secunderabad in RC No. 112 of 2013 dated 15.09.2015, this revision, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rent Control Act), is filed by the tenant in R.C. No. 112 of 2013. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C. No. 112 of 2013. The petitioners-landlords filed R.C. No. 112 of 2013, under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, seeking a direction to the respondent-tenant, and all others claiming under or through him, to vacate and deliver vacant, peaceful, physical and legal possession of the petition schedule premises to them. The petitioners filed R.C. No. 112 of 2013 claiming to be the absolute owners of premises No. 2-1-1 and 2-1-192 (old Mulgi No. 1222), consisting of the ground and first floors admeasuring 810 square feet situated at General Bazaar, Secunderabad, by virtue of a Will executed by their grandmother Smt. Cheela Kanakalakshmi in their favour on 10.12.2006; Smt. Cheela Kanakalakshmi was the owner of the petition schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1957 executed by her vendor in her favour; Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi expired on 17.02.2008; they entered into a registered partition deed on 29.10.2013; the subject property was let out by their grand-mother to the grand-father of the tenant i.e. R. Kanakaiah and, after his death, his son R. Laxman Rao carried on business in the said property; the respondent-tenant was in occupation of the petition schedule property paying a monthly rent of Rs. 950/-; the respondent owned several commercial properties in the same locality; he had filed R.C. No. 170 of 2002 against their grand mother Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi and their father Sri. C. Ramulu, for deposit of monthly rent of Rs. 950/-, which was allowed; the first petitioner needed the entire premises for his personal requirement for commencing textiles and readymade garment business; the petitioners do not have any other non-residential premises, except the petition schedule property in the twin cities of Secunderabad and Hyderabad; the second petitioner is in private service, and has no objection to the first petitioner carrying on the proposed business; the second petitioner may also join as a partner in the said business; the respondent-tenant had illegally sublet a major portion of the ground floor of the subject mulgi to a third party who was carrying on business under the name and style of Saheli Suits; the respondent had also allowed several petty vendors to carry on business in front of the premises by collecting a hefty license fee per day; he was not revealing details of the sub-tenant, and the quantum of rent being collected by him; the petitioners came to know, through reliable sources, that the respondent was collecting Rs. 750/- per day from the said third party i.e. Saheli Suits and subletting of the subject property by the respondent was without the written or oral consent of the landlords, and was unlawful.
2. In his counter the respondent-tenant denied the allegations contending that the petitioners were not his landlords and neither had he ever paid rent to them nor had they claimed rent at any time as owners of the subject property. While admitting that the subject property belonged to Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi, the respondent-tenant contended that her son C. Sriramulu, (father of the petitioners-landlords) was the person collecting rents; the subject property was let out to his grandfather who had constructed the subject premises thereon at his cost with the consent of the original owner Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi, and her son Sri. C. Sriramulu; the respondent was a tenant of the petition schedule property on a mon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
