IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
Mohammad Ahsan S/o Fakirsab – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Gous S/o Mohammad Ismail – Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 107 of 2019
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Interim Order - Tenant's Structural Changes - The court upheld the restraining order against the tenant from causing any structural changes in the suit property till the disposal of the eviction proceedings, citing provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a landlord, filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner, a tenant, citing grounds of bona fide requirement, nuisance, creation of sub-tenancy, and addition alteration to the suit premises. The respondent also sought an injunction to restrain the tenant from making any structural changes to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the restraining order against the tenant, stating that the landlord can file an application for injunction during the pendency of the suit to prevent damage to the property, as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.
Issues: The issues involved the tenant's challenge to the restraining order and the interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the restraining order against the tenant was proper and justifiable, as allowing the tenant to damage the property during the pendency of litigation would render any decree passed after the trial fruitless.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Application filed by the tenant was dismissed, and the hearing of the suit pending before the Rent Controller was expedited.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
1. This CRA is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure code, challenging the judgments and order passed by both the Courts below.
2. The applicant herein is the tenant of the suit premises being a hotel premises. The respondent is the landlord who had filed a suit in the year 1995 against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act, for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, nuisance, creation of sub-tenancy and addition alteration to the suit premises and the tenant has challenged the ownership of the landlord.
3. As the suit was pending for hearing the respondent-landlord moved an application before the local Municipal Corporation in order to inspect the suit premises. The Municipal Corporation Officer by his report dated 01.06.2016, has given a report that a shutter is fixed into the disputed property and there is structural alteration. Soon thereafter, the respondent landlord moved an application in the eviction suit in the month of June, 2016 and prayed therein that the tenant be restrained from making any structural changes, constructions, alterations, modifications or removing any portion of the suit property or from using the so called steel shutter illegally fixed by him into the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The tenant filed a reply to this application denying the contentions made by the landlord. By a reasoned order dated 30.11.2016, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the landlord and restrained the tenant from causing any structural changes in the suit property in any manner till the disposal of the eviction proceedings without following due process of law.
4. The said order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged before the District Court by filing an Appeal under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. Learned District Judge heard both the parties and by his order dated 27.03.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant.
5. The tenant has challenged both the orders of the trial Court by way of filing the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Hon’ble Court.
6. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant/tenant. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant/tenant that there is no provision for grant of interim order, thereby, making applicable the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even to pass any order in the form of interim nature. Learned Advocate has further submitted that the findings recorded by Courts below are perverse.
ANALYSIS:
7. The Rent Controller by its order has restrained the tenant from causing any structural changes in the suit property till the disposal of the eviction proceedings without following due process of law.
Under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, eviction of tenant can be sought on grounds mentioned under Section 15. One of the eviction ground is Section 15 (2) (iii) which states that the tenant has committed such act of waste as is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house.
Further Section 20 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, defines “Repairs and Improvements” as under:
(2) If the landlord neglects to make, within a reasonable time after the notice by the tenant is served upon him by post or otherwise, any repairs which he is bound to make under subsection (1), the tenant may make the repairs himself and deduct the cost of such repairs from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord.
Provided that where the tenant makes the repairs himself, the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one-twelfth of the rent payable by the tenant for the year.
Therefore, under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, a tenant is prohibited from committing any act of waste in the suit prop
The landlord can file an application for injunction during the pendency of the suit to prevent damage to the property by the tenant, as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and ....
The landlord is entitled to evict the tenant for willful default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.
The appellate court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, reflecting a conscious application of mind to all issues, while the revisional jurisdiction does not allow for a re-hearing of f....
The court clarified that tax exemption status does not exempt a charitable landlord from compliance with eviction procedures under rent control laws.
The court clarified that Section 10 of the CPC applies only to suits and not to applications in pending suits. Additionally, the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership/tit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.