Court clarified that in eviction cases, evidence must substantiate claims of substantial renovation as required by law, emphasizing tenant's default in payment warrants eviction despite alleged jurisdictional issues.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/landlord aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2017 passed in R.A.No.76 of 2014 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the appellant therein challenged the order in R.C.No.127 of 2006 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.

3. R.C.No.127 of 2006 was filed by the landlord for eviction of tenant from the petition schedule property and the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the age of building is only 8 years. Thus, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the same was upheld by the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

4. The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant for willful default in paying rent. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Court found the tenant guilty for willful default, but failed to order eviction. The courts below unnecessarily considered the age of property and applied Section 32 of the AP Buildings Lease/Rent and Eviction Control Act (for short ‘Act’), despite the tenant not pleading this point. This section requires substantial reconstruction of the property, exceeding 75%. The Courts erred in concluding that the landlord admitted to reconstructing the property in 1998 without determining the extent of reconstruction. They relied on presumptions and assumptions rather than evidence.

5. Both the courts failed to consider that the property was originally a small malgi (7x10 feet) that was reduced to 4x4 feet due to road widening. The landlord merely affixed a shutter to the remaining property, which cannot be considered as substantial reconstruction (75%). At most, it constitutes 25% reconstruction. There is no evidence to support the claim that the property was reconstructed to the extent of 75%, as required by Section 32 of the Act. The tenant failed to provide proof, oral evidence or documents from the GHMC to support his claim. The courts should have ordered eviction of tenant, as he failed to prove substantial reconstruction of the property, instead, wrongly applied Section 32 of the Act, leading to dismissal of the landlord's eviction petition.

6. Heard Sri Nikunj Digar, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 14 who are the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 who were brought on record vide I.A.No.1 of 2022.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the landlord is that the trial Court did not consider the evidence in right perspective and without there being any evidence to show that petition schedule property was renovated to 75%, came to the conclusion and gave a finding that the age of building is only eight years and there is no point to entertain the petition and point No.2 was discussed with regard to wilful default and considered that tenant is wilful defaulter in payment of rent as there is no evidence adduced by the tenant to show that there is 75% of renovation as per Section 32 of the Act and extension shows that the building may be said to have substantially renovated for not less than 75% and the premises is built newly in accordance with criteria prescribed for determining the extent of renovation, wherein in the present case, except the admission of Pw.1 that after road widening, he became tenant of shop bearing No.5-1-623/1, whereas originally the number was 5-1-624, as such, it is a renovated building and dismissed the petition. Mere admission of the same is not sufficient