Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.
Syed Bin Abdullah Ba Hakam – Appellant
Versus
Shaik Azeem – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.348 of 2018
Decided on : 29-05-2020
Headnote:
A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22 -Civil Revision Petition - Eviction of tenant - Bona fide requirement of land lord -petitioner is the absolute owner and landlord of the petition schedule property. The petitioner, through his GPA who is his father, gave assurance to the respondent that he can do business in the petition schedule property till he is fit and proper to be the tenant, subject to payment of rent promptly. Thus, the tenancy became a permanent tenancy without stipulation of any period. The petitioner is well settled in Saudi Arabia since 25 years and is gainfully employed there. He has no intention to come to India and start his own business. There are no bona fides in the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is having another shop at Afzalgunj, which is centrally located, besides the petition schedule property and its adjacent shop. The petitioner has no acquaintance with the old motor spare parts business since his childhood. The ground of personal bona fide requirement raised by the petitioner is not genuine. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and he filed the petition suppressing the true facts. There is no iota of truth in the claim of the petitioner
Finding of the Court:
since the premises requires alterations to be made in that regard, the landlord also intended to demolish the existing structure and put up a construction suitable for his purpose. The landlord himself was examined as P.W.1 in that case. The tenant resisted the petition inter alia disputing the jural relationship. The trial Court ordered eviction. The appeal preferred by the tenant before the first appellate Court was dismissed. The tenant approached the High Court and the High Court allowed the revision by reversing the orders of both the Courts below. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal holding that the crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction and that the High Court erroneously arrived at conclusion that bona fide occupation as sought, should be not only on date of petition, but it should continue to be there on date of final adjudication of rights. On facts, the said decision is also distinguishable from the case on hand
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
Result: The law is thus well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record, both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.”
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is filed by the petitioner/landlord, challenging the judgment, dated 06.10.2017, passed in R.A.No.138 of 2015 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the order, dated 17.06.2015, passed in R.C.No.129 of 2013 by the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, ordering eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition schedule property, was quashed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
3. The revision petitioner herein is the landlord and the respondent herein is the tenant of the premises bearing No.19-1-873/6/1/A/9 situated at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule property’). The revision petitioner/landlord filed the subject R.C.No.129 of 2013 before the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition schedule property contending as follows:
“The petitioner is the absolute owner and landlord of the petition schedule property. The respondent obtained the petition schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.2000/- for running A business, under Rental Agreement, dated 08.02.2008. The respondent used to pay the rent of the petition schedule property to the revision petitioner through his GPA, who is none other than his father. While so, the petitioner and his GPA requested the respondent to vacate and handover the petition schedule property for the personal bona fide requirement of the petitioner for carrying on old motor spare parts business, as the petition schedule property is centrally located. But the respondent is avoiding to vacate and handover the possession on one pretext or other. The petitioner is having the petition schedule property and adjacent shop No. 19-1-873/6/1/A/10. Hence the petition.”
4. The respondent/tenant filed counter contending as follows:
“The petitioner is the absolute owner and landlord of the petition schedule property. The petitioner, through his GPA who is his father, gave assurance to the respondent that he can do business in the petition schedule property till he is fit and proper to be the tenant, subject to payment of rent promptly. Thus, the tenancy became a permanent tenancy without stipulation of any period. The petitioner is well settled in Saudi Arabia since 25 years and is gainfully employed there. He has no intention to come to India and start his own business. There are no bona fides in the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is having another shop at Afzalgunj, which is centrally located, besides the petition schedule property and its adjacent shop. The petitioner has no acquaintance with the old motor spare parts business since his childhood. The ground of personal bona fide requirement raised by the petitioner is not genuine. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and he filed the petition suppressing the true facts. There is no iota of truth in the claim of the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed.”
5. On merits, the trial Court allowed the subject R.C.No.129 of 2013 directing the respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the revision petitioner within two months from the date of the said order, failing which the petitioner was set at liberty to evict the respondent under due process of law.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the respondent/tenant filed the subject R.A.No.138 of 2015 before the Court below. The Court below, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal by quashing the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/landlord filed this Civil Revision Petition.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would contend that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts. The Court below failed to consi
