RENT CONTROL ACT EVICTION OF TENANT BY VENDEE ON THE GROUND OF BONAFIDE NEED , ADDTIONAL EVIDENCE AT APPEAL STAGE UNDER OR.41, RULE 27 NOT APPLIES IN RENT CONTROL CASE = The ground of willful default pleaded by the respondent was held not proved before the Rent Controller. Even the Appellate Authority concurred with that finding, and it became final. 6. The second ground pleaded by the respondent, viz., bona fide requirement, though was not accepted by the Rent Controller, was held proved by the Appellate Authority. The respondent pleaded that she frequently visits India and the very purpose of purchasing the premises was to have a residence of her own in India. It is also stated that on account of her not owning any residence, she had to reside in the house of her erstwhile landlords. 7. The children of the respondent are studying in India. Though relevant material in that behalf was not placed before the Rent Controller, she filed I.A. No.785 of 2006 before the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 11 (2) of the Rules made thereunder. Though Rule 27 of Order XXXXI CPC was also invoked, it is difficult to apply the parameters of that provision to the proceedings under the Act. The Act makes it very clear that the provisions of CPC would apply to the proceedings under it only to the extent that the area is not covered. When there is a specific provision under the Act and the Rules made therunder pertaining to filing of additional material, the stringency of Order - XXXXI Rule - 27 cannot be imported into the proceedings under the Act. Further, the Appellate Authority did not base its findings exclusively upon the additional material. The petitioners also did not dispute the fact that the children of the respondent are studying in the institutions in Hyderabad. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the order of eviction is since been executed. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of.

REPORTE/PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9792

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4442 of 2008  

04-04-2013

Faheemuddin Ahmed S/o. Late Rafique Ahmed and others  

Farzana Abedi W/o.Syed Riazuddin

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri  S. Balchand

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A. Sameer Kumar

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

 ORDER:
The petitioners are tenants of residential premises at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad,
owned by the respondent.  R.C. No.323 of 2003 was filed by the respondent before
the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioners by
citing reasons of wilful default in payment of rent from April, 2001 onwards and
bona fide requirement.  It was mentioned that the respondent is residing in
Saudi Arabia, and taking advantage of the same, the petitioners failed and
refused to pay the rents to authorized person.  It was also stated that the
respondent used to come to India frequently, and used to stay for a considerable
time and when she informed the petitioners that the premises are needed for her
personal occupation, they refused to vacate the premises.  She further stated
that though the petitioners knew the fact that the premises was purchased by the
respondent from her previous owner, they deliberately filed R.C. No.188 of 2001
under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act, for deposit of rents.  Learned Rent
Controller dismissed R.C. No.323 of 2003 through order, dated
06-12-2005.  Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed R.A. No.21 of 2006. The
appeal has been partly allowed through order, dated 25-08-2008.  Hence, this
revision.

2.  Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
learned Rent Controller recorded the findings to the effect that the respondent
failed to establish both the grounds pleaded, and the appellate authority has
reversed the same without any basis.  He contends that the respondent filed an
application at the stage of appeal with a request to receive additional
evidence, but no evidence was recorded by the Appellate Authority nor the matter
was sent to the Rent Controller for recording of evidence.  He submits that
though the respondent owned several premises, she has chosen the petitioners
alone for eviction.

3.  Sri A. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submits that the Rent Controller proceeded purely on hyper technicalities and
though adequate material was placed before it, the grounds of eviction were not
accepted.  He submits that the additional evidence is comprised only of the
certificates, disclosing that the sons of the respondent are studying in the
institutions in Hyderabad and that the same did not need any oral evidence at
all.

4.  The tenancy of the petitioners was with the original owner of the premises.
The respondent purchased the same during the subsistence of the tenancy and it
was transferred to her.  Though the petitioners feigned ignorance of the
transfer, once they have been informed of the same, they were under obligation
to pay the rents to the respondent and recognize her as their landlady.

5.  The ground of wilful default pleaded by the respondent was held not proved
before the Rent Controller.  Even the Appellate Authority concurred with that
finding, and it became final.

6.  The second ground pleaded by the respondent, viz., bona fide requirement,
though was not accepted by the Rent Controller, was held proved by the Appellate
Authority.  The respondent pleaded that she frequently visits India and the very
purpose of purchasing the premises was to have a residence of her own in India.
It is also stated that on account of her not owning any residence, she had to
reside in the house of her erstwhile landlords.

7.  The children of the respondent are studying in India.  Though relevant
material in that behalf was not placed before the Rent Controller, she filed
I.A. No.785 of 2006 before the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the A.P.
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act')
read with Rule 11 (2) of the Rules made thereunder.  Though Rule 27 of Order
XXXXI CPC was also invoked, it is difficult to apply the parameters of that
provision to the proceedings under the Act.  The Act makes it very clear that
the provisions of CPC would apply to the proceedings under it only to the extent
that the area is not covered.  
When there is a specific provision under the Act
and the Rules made therunder pertaining to filing of additional material, the
stringency of Order - XXXXI Rule - 27 cannot be imported into the proceedings
under the Act.  Further, the Appellate Authority did not base its findings
exclusively upon the additional material.  The petitioners also did not dispute
the fact that the children of the respondent are studying in the institutions in
Hyderabad. 

8.  It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the order of eviction is
since been executed.
9.  The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  There shall be no
order as to costs.  The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition
shall also stand disposed of.
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J  
April 04, 2013.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.