Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Sunil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Dastagir and Ors - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1386 of 2019
Decided On : 11-07-2019
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – Section 22, 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) –
Challengingorder in EP.No. of I Additional Rent Controller – RC was filed by father of respondents 1 to 3 against 4th respondent for eviction of 4th respondent before I Additional Rent Controller – Trial Court said RCC was allowed and 4th respondent was directed to vacate RC schedule premises within time period – Whether EP schedule property is Wakf Property or not, was considered in RC wherein Assistant Secretary of A.P. Wakf Board was summoned as Court Witness and said witness had admitted that Proforma for Survey of Wakf Properties and Official Gazette not refer to EP schedule property – Held, On basis of his evidence Rent Controller rejected claim of 4th respondent that EP schedule property is wakf Property – It is clear that petitioner is brother of 4th respondent, who is the Judgment Debtor in RC – It is also not in dispute that in claim petition, petitioner not state for how many years he was in possession of EP schedule property also not disputed that petitioner did not file any document to prove that he had taken EP schedule property on rent either from Wakf Board or from father of respondents 1 to 3 – Court rejected Ex.P1 photographs filed by petitioner on ground that it did not contain any time and date. Ex.P3 and P5 are original Cash Memo dt.06.05.2017 and provisional Trade License issued by GHMC in name of petitioner, but in absence of any material to show how petitioner got into possession of EP schedule property, these documents cannot considered – Court had properly appreciated evidence on record and rightly rejected claim of petitioner – Civil Revision Petition dismissed (Paras: 18 to 23)
Facts of the case:
Challengingorder in EP.No. of I Additional Rent Controller – RC was filed by father of respondents 1 to 3 against 4th respondent for eviction of 4th respondent before I Additional Rent Controller – Trial Court said RCC was allowed and 4th respondent was directed to vacate RC schedule premises within time period – Whether EP schedule property is Wakf Property or not, was considered in RC wherein Assistant Secretary of A.P. Wakf Board was summoned as Court Witness and said witness had admitted that Proforma for Survey of Wakf Properties and Official Gazette not refer to EP schedule property
Findings of the court:
On basis of his evidence Rent Controller rejected claim of 4th respondent that EP schedule property is wakf Property – It is clear that petitioner is brother of 4th respondent, who is the Judgment Debtor in RC – It is also not in dispute that in claim petition, petitioner not state for how many years he was in possession of EP schedule property also not disputed that petitioner did not file any document to prove that he had taken EP schedule property on rent either from Wakf Board or from father of respondents 1 to 3 – Court rejected Ex.P1 photographs filed by petitioner on ground that it did not contain any time and date. Ex.P3 and P5 are original Cash Memo dt.06.05.2017 and provisional Trade License issued by GHMC in name of petitioner, but in absence of any material to show how petitioner got into possession of EP schedule property, these documents cannot considered – Court had properly appreciated evidence on record and rightly rejected claim of petitioner
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. This Revision is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order dt.03.06.2019 in EA.No.34 of 2017 in EP.No.13 of 2008 in RC.No.288 of 2002 of the I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The said RC was filed by the father of respondents 1 to 3, by name Mohammed Dastagir, against the 4th respondent for eviction of the 4th respondent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad invoking Sec.s 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the Act.
3. He raised in the said RC a plea of willful default in payment of rents by the 4th respondent for the period January, 1999 to July, 20002. He also contended that the 4th respondent had denied his title to the RC schedule property and that the denial of title is not bonafide.
4. The 4th respondent filed a counter stating that the property is a Wakf property attached to a Dargah, by name Dargah Hazrath Dhamal Shah Saheb. He alleged that father of respondents 1 to 3 was the Mutawalli of the said Dargah and that the 4th respondent had taken it on lease from the father of respondents 1 to 3 in his capacity as a Mutawalli. He denied that father of respondents 1 to 3 was the owner of the property. He also pleaded that the father of respondents 1 to 3 had lost a suit O.S.No.1458 of 1992 before the VIII Junior Civil Judge against the A.P. Wakf Board and so the suit schedule property was a Wakf property.
5. After trial, on 06.05.2004 the said RCC was allowed and the 4th respondent was directed to vacate the RC schedule premises within two (02) months. The Rent Controller gave a finding that the subject premises was not a Wakf property.
6. The order in the RC.No.288 of 2002 was challenged in RA.No.125 of 2004 by the 4th respondent before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the said appeal was also dismissed on 26.06.2018.
7. Challenging the order in the appeal, 4th respondent filed CRP.Nos.3550 of 2008 and 1079 of 2009 before this Court and the said Revisions are also dismissed on 04.04.2013.
8. Then the petitioner herein filed EA.No.34 of 2017 invoking Rule 23(7) of the Act as a claim petitioner to declare that the order passed in RC.No.288 of 2002 is null and void, inoperative and does not bind him.
9. Petitioner alleged in the said claim petition that respondents 1 to 4 colluded with each other and got passed an eviction order in RCC.No.288 of 2002 in respect of the subject premises and they are trying to evict him fraudulently and collusively. He alleged that the RC schedule property belongs to a Wakf Dargah by name Dargah Hazrath Dhamal Shah Saheb, and was under the management of the Telangana State Wakf Board. He claims to be a tenant of the Telangana State Wakf Board. He alleged that father of respondent No.s 1 to 3 suppressed the fact and sold the RC schedule property to one Shaik Hyder Ali under registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA with possession on 10.07.2007 and a Sale Deed was executed in favour of one Mohd Fasiuddin subsequently for the area of 95 sq. yards with shops as mentioned in the EP schedule. He alleged that the possession of the property was not with Mohd.Dastagir and so his legal heirs i.e., respondents 1 to 3, cannot maintain the EP.
10. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter denying the said contentions and stating that the claim petition is not maintainable either in fact or law. They further contended that the claim petition is filed only to delay and drag on the eviction proceedings, though the order in the RC had been confirmed even by the High Court on 04.04.2013 in CRP.No.s 3550 of 2008 and 1079 of 2009. They contended that the claim petitioner/petitioner herein was never in possession of the property. They also denied about the alleged execution of the Agreement of Sale dt.10.07.2007 by their father in favour of Md.Fasiuddin and the sale deed document No.635/2007.
11. In the claim petition, petitioner was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. He a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
