Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Mohd. Quasim – Appellant
Versus
P. Vijay Prakash – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.603 of 2020
Decided on : 03-07-2020
Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22 - Civil Revision - Eviction of tenant - Arrears of rent - bona fide requirement - Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents Respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of portion of the property having acquired it under a registered Partition Deed vide Document the 2nd respondent is absolute owner and possessor of another portion of the property bearing Municipal comprising land admeasuring consisting of tin-shed, one room and open yard situate at Patelnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad having also acquired the same under the above referred Partition Deed -
Finding of the Court:
Though the petitioner had contended that the respondents had entered into a registered Agreement for grant of lease of the subject premises to him, according to the respondents, such rental Agreement was entered into on an assurance given by the petitioner that he would vacate the R.C. Schedule premises, but the same was later cancelled by them under a Deed of Cancellation which was also registered as Document -Evidence of P.W.1 in the R.C. that their landlord Sri S. Subhash Reddy asked them to vacate the rented premises being used by them for their business of Motor mechanical works was examined by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, and it was observed that the cross-examination by the petitioner did not shake the said evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had erred in directing eviction of the petitioner from the R.C. Schedule premises on the said ground as well -Petitioner is granted time to vacate the R.C. Schedule property - He shall also deposit the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller, if not paid, within six (06) weeks and continue to pay the rents - Petitioner shall also file an undertaking that he would vacate the R.C. Schedule premises within the above time and also state that he will deposit the rents, to the extent he had not done so, within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order -
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dt.30.12.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.50 of 2019 of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Appellate authority’), confirming the order dt.21.01.2019 passed in R.C.No.188 of 2016 of the I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Rent Controller’).
The plea of respondents in R.C.No.188 of 2016
2. The respondents herein filed the said R.C.No.188 of 2016 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(b)(iii) of the above Act with the following averments :
3. The 1st respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of portion of the property bearing Municipal No.5-5-212/5/8 consisting of a tinshed, one room and open yard situate at Patelnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad (referred to as ‘A’ Schedule Property) having acquired it under a registered Partition Deed dt.24.09.2006 vide Document No.1959/2006; the 2nd respondent is absolute owner and possessor of another portion of the property bearing Municipal No.5-5-212/5/8 comprising land admeasuring 170.56 Sq.Yds consisting of tin-shed, one room and open yard situate at Patelnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad (referred to as ‘B’ Schedule Property) having also acquired the same under the above referred Partition Deed.
4. The father of respondents by name Sri P. Arjun Rao had purchased the entire property bearing Municipal No.5-5-212/5/8 comprising of land area of 511.70 Sq.Yds. under a registered Sale Deed dt.27.08.1974; that he had executed a registered Will dt.14.02.2020 and bequeathed the property to his three sons including respondent nos.1 and 2, and another eldest son by name Sri P. Jayaprakash; that Sri P. Arjun Rao expired on 04.03.2001 and the respondents and their brother Sri P. Jayaprakash inherited the said property under the said registered Will. It is contended that the respondents and their brother Sri P. Jayaprakash executed a registered Partition Deed dt.29.04.2006 dividing the property into three portions and thus the respondents became owners of the respective portions (A and B schedule properties) without any interference.
5. According to respondents, the elder brother of respondents by name Sri P. Jayaprakash sold away his portion of the property to one Yousufunnisa Begum in the year 2006 who had let out the said property to M/s.Miracle Glass Traders.
6. The respondents contended that petitioner originally obtained the entire property bearing Municipal No.5-5-212/5/8 with the land area of 511.70 Sq.Yds. from the father of respondents, viz., Sri P.Arjun Rao in the year 2004 on oral tenancy for establishing Motor Mechanical works unit on monthly rent; that the tenancy was from month to month commencing from the first day of the month and ending with last day of the same month; that monthly rent was exclusive of electricity consumption charges and was payable on or before 5th of every English Calendar month; after the death of their father, the petitioner was paying monthly rents to respondents and he last paid the said monthly rent for June, 2016 in July, 2016 on 14.07.2016 at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month and thereafter committed default in payment of rents.
7. It is stated that at the request of their elder brother, viz., P. Jayaprakash, the petitioner vacated and handed over the western portion of the property in the year 2006 and was in occupation as a tenant of only ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties referred to above totalling to 341.12 Sq.Yds. According to them, by the time of filing of the eviction petition in December, 2006, the petitioner was in arrears of rent of Rs.9000/-, and therefore, he was liable to be evicted from ‘A’ & ‘B’ Schedule properties.
8. It was also contended that the respondents were doing the Motor Mechanical Works under the name and style ‘M/s. Sri Sai Baba Motor Works’ under tenancy since November, 2012 in another prop
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
