IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. B.DEEPTI
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S. No. 307 OF 2016
DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
Between:
Mohd. Shaffiudin, S/o late Shaik Dawood, aged 38 years, Moulana-Cum-Business, R/o H.No. 1-10-25/1, situated at Prkash Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad – 16.
Hyderabad District, State of Telangana. ...Plaintiff
AND
Smt. Quairunnisa, W/o Abdul Raheem, aged 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No. 1-8-506/2/B/2, (first floor), Situated at Viquar Nagar, Begumpet,
Secunderabad (Hyderabad ...Defendant
This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Purushotham, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S.Prakash Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for perpetual injunction.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the tenant of defendant. It is contended that the defendant had let out shutter No.2 (Ground floor) bearing municipal
Page No. 2O.S. No.307 of 2016
No.1-8-506/2/B/2 admeasuring built up area of 89 sq.ft situated in
Viquar Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad for a monthly rent of
Rs.1,210/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges. The plaintiff has been running his travel business under the name and style of
M/s.Hy-Life Haj & Imarah Tours and Travels. The tenancy rights of suit schedule shutter No.2 were created under an oral tenancy between plaintiff and defendant. The rent payable is month to month, payable on or before 10th of each month. The mode of payment of monthly rent is by tendering cash directly to the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiff has been paying rents regularly to the defendant for last six years and the defendant was not in the habit of issuing any rental receipts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid monthly rents for the suit schedule property that is shutter No.4 till the end of 31st
January 2016. The plaintiff further contends that on 12.03.2016 at about 11.00 am the defendant’s husband came to the suit schedule property and had demanded the plaintiff for enhancement of rent to an amount of Rs.5,000/- without fixation of fair rent by competent court for which the plaintiff refused upon which the defendant left the place murmuring to himself. It was further contended that the
Page No. 3O.S. No.307 of 2016
defendant developed grudge against the plaintiff and had made up her mind to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
3.It was further contended that the defendant along with her men came to the suit schedule property on 21.03.2016 at about 7.00 pm tried to trespass into suit schedule property with an intention to evict the plaintiff and had proclaimed that he would procure anti-social elements and would disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. It was further contended that the defendant is in habit of insulting the plaintiff in the presence of other tenants. It was further contended that there is a constant threat from the defendant. It was also contended that on 14.04.2016 at about 3.00 pm defendant had come to the suit schedule property and had warned the plaintiff proclaiming that in view of the legal notice that was given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was bound to pay rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month and had threatened the plaintiff, that he would be beaten up. The plaintiff had made an attempt through its sole proprietor to lodge as police complaint before Station House Office, Begumpet, P.S.Prakash
Nagar, Secunderabad but the police had advised the plaintiff to
Page No. 4O.S. No.307 of 2016
approach the Civil Court. It was contended that the plaintiff is apprehending dispossession from the suit schedule property.
4.Defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant is the owner of house bearing No.1-8-506/2/B/2, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad.
The defendant contends that shutter No.2 was not let out on rent separately to the plaintiff for a monthly rent of Rs.1,210/-. The shutter No.3, 4 and 5 constitute one mulgi and the plaintiff has been running Kirana and General stores business in the mulgi since 2012.
The suit schedule building is a newly constructed building and it was let out to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the first tenant of the mulgi.
The shutter No.3, 4 and 5 constitute one compact mulgi and it was let out on an oral tenancy to the plaintiff for a monthly rent of
Rs.20,000/- per month and not as alleged by the plaintiff that the shutter No.2 was let out to him for monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. The plaintiff had mischievously created separate tenancy for each shutter.
There was no tenancy for each shutter as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had to pay rent on or before 10th of each calendar month in
Page No. 5O.S. No.307 of 2016
advance. The plaintiff was irregular in payment of rent and totally stopped paying rents from the month of January 2016.
5.It was further contended that in the ground floor of house bearing No.1-8-506/2/B/2, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad.
There was four separate mulgies consisting of six shutters. The mulgi No.1 has one shutter has one shutter, mulgi No.2 has one shutter for mulgi No.3 there are three shutters i.e. of shutter No.3, 4 and 5 and for mulgi No.4 it has got independent shutter that is shutter
No.6 out of four mulgis one Mohammed Shafiuddin took three mulgies. Mulgi No.1 was let out to another tenant. In mulgi No.2 to 4 one Mohd. Shafiuddin has been running his business as sole proprietor for different kinds of business.
6. It was contended that in mulgi No.2 the plaintiff is running travel agency in name and style of Hy-Life Haj and Umrah Tours and
Travels. In Mulgi No.3 consisting three mulgi shutters that is shutter
No.3, 4 and 5 which constitute one compact mulgi. The plaintiff has been running a Kirana and General stores. In mulgi No.4 with shutter
Page No. 6O.S. No.307 of 2016
No.6, the plaintiff has been running M/s. Hy-Life Poultry and Mutton busienss. It was further contended that the shutters were separately let out on rent to the plaintiff is not true. It was contended that for each mulgi separate rent was fixed.
7.It was further contended that the plaintiff is trying to confuse and to evade payment of rent for each mulgi. For mulgi No.2 the agreed rent is Rs.6,000/- per month and the plaintiff has been running tours and travels business in that mulgi. It was further contended that in shutter No.3,4 and 5 the plaintiff has been running Kirana and
General stores for a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- per month and for mulgi No.4 consisting of shutter No.6 a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- was being paid by the plaintiff, as rent and the plaintiff has been running a chicken and mutton shop in the name and style of Hy-life poultry and mutton business. It was contended that at the time of inception of tenancy i.e., in the monthly rent of January 2012, the plaintiff had agreed to enhance the rent @ 5% for every year. The period of lease was three years. The plaintiff taking undue advantage of the fact that the defendant is a pardha-nasheen lady tried to harass the defendant
Page No. 7O.S. No.307 of 2016
and has been trying to deprive the defendant of the lawful payment of rents to the defendant. The plaintiff had filed five suits with shutter number without disclosing the true facts. The plaintiff should have filed one suit since the plaintiff is the tenant of three mulgis consisting of shutter No.2 to 6. Admittedly defendant is the only land lady for all the mulgis. The plaintiff had paid rents to the said mulgis till the month of December 2015 and thereafter he failed to pay rents. The defendant has been regularly requesting the plaintiff to pay the rents but the plaintiff has been giving evasive replies and had been dodging payment of rents one pretext or the other. The defendant insisted the plaintiff to pay arrears of rent regularly and then the plaintiff grew angry.
8.It was further contended that the defendant had not approached the plaintiff on 12.03.2016 and 21.3.2016 and had not tried to dispossess the plaintiff. It was further contended that the plaintiff has been harassing the defendant and her family members.
It was further contended that on intervening night of 02.09.2015 the plaintiff had picked up quarrel with the children of defendant and had
Page No. 8O.S. No.307 of 2016
created nuisance. The defendant and her husband got down from the first floor and requested the plaintiff not to harass them and not to create nuisance and the defendant should carry on his business peacefully inspite of the request of defendant and her family members the plaintiff manhandled defendant’s husband and he became unconscious. Immediately defendant’s neighbours shifted the defendant to Gandhi Hospital and the defendant booked a criminal case against the plaintiff. The defendant’s husband was treated for the injuries and while the defendant’s husband was under treatment in hospital the plaintiff brought local leaders and elders and had apologized for the mistake and had promised that he would maintain cordial relationship and he would not create any nuisance or problem. Believing the plaintiff’s words the defendant had withdrawn the complaint. From that day onwards the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and her family members. In furtherance of the design of taking revenge against the defendant and her family the plaintiff filed the instant case. It was further contended that no where in the vicinity of the suit schedule property the rent alleged by the plaintiff was being paid. The plaintiff withheld rents from the month
Page No. 9O.S. No.307 of 2016
of January 2016.
9.It was further contended that the suit is under valued. The rent for mulgi No.2 with shutter No.2 was Rs.6,000/- per month but he has not separated shutter No.2 as alleged by the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff had intentionally separated each shutter to mislead the court. It was further contended that the plaintiff had taken the signatures of the defendant and her husband on blank papers and created rental deed without knowledge of the defendant.
The lease was oral tenancy and there was no written document.
10.The following issues were framed by my predecessor :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?
11.PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaintiff in his examination- in-chief. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that reproduction
Page No. 10O.S. No.307 of 2016
of the contents of examination-in-chief of PW1 over and again would not serve any useful purpose.
12.PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the suit schedule property was a newly constructed building and he was the first tenant inducted in it. He was running tours and travels in the name and style of Haj Umrah. Another business of Kirana and General stores was being run in the name Hi-Life Traders. It was also contended that he was running poultry business in the name of Hy-Life Poultry
Chicken and mutton in the suit schedule property. He obtained license for doing above business. He did not file copies of said licenses before Court. He had not obtained permission for running tours and travels from the concerned authority. He admitted that there were four mulgies in the ground floor and he was in possession of three mulgies out of four mulgies. He admitted that in the fourth mulgi there was a tailoring shop. He denied suggestion that the contention that he was paying only a monthly rent of Rs.1,210/- was a false contention. He denied suggestion that he had agreed to pay
Rs.6,000/- per month as a rent for mulgi no.2 in which he was running
Page No. 11O.S. No.307 of 2016
M/s.Hy-Life Haj and Umrah Tours and Travels. He admitted that he joined in mulgi No.2 in the year 2012. The rent was never enhanced from the date of his joining as tenant in mulgi no.2. He denied suggestion that for three mulgies there was oral tenancy and he agreed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month for mulgi No.2 and he has been running tours and travels in mulgi No.3. He denied suggestion that he paid rents only upto December 2015. He denied suggestion that he has been running Kirana and General stores in mulgi No.3 and has been paying Rs.20,000/- per month for the mulgi. He denied suggestion that he has been paying Rs.9,000/- on rent for mulgi No.4 in which he has been running poultry and mutton shop. It was further contended that he has paying the rents as mentioned above for the suit schedule property and he was deposing falsely. He paid the rents to the respondent/defendant upto the month of April or May 2016. He denied suggestions that he paid rents only upto the month of
December 2015. He did not mention in his examination-in-chief that he paid rents upto the month of April or May 2016. He knew that the defendant filed the written statement in all the cases filed by him. He admitted that he had specifically mentioned in his examination in his
Page No. 12O.S. No.307 of 2016
chief that defendant falsely claimed the quantum of rents in their written statements. He had not lodged any report with the police on the allegations of illegal interfere of his possession over the suit schedule property by the husband of the defendant on the alleged date of interference i.e., 12/3/2016, 21/3/2016 and 14/4/2016 respectively. He denied suggestion that the husband of defendant had never come to the suit schedule property demanding enhancement of rent to an extent of Rs.5,000/- over the existing alleged rents. He denied suggestion that defendant had never threatened him nor brought any anti-social to the suit schedule property as alleged by him.
13.It was further contended that he assaulted the husband of the defendant and he was admitted in the hospital. He denied suggestion that husband of defendant lodged a report against PW1 with police and the police had referred him to the hospital and that with the political influence he made the defendant’s husband to drop the complaint. He had got issued legal notice to the husband of the defendant asking him not to interfere with his possession and not to
Page No. 13O.S. No.307 of 2016
threaten the plaintiff to vacate the premises. He admitted that there was only one tenant besides the plaintiff in the entire building, other than the suit schedule property. He denied suggestion that defendant had never insulted him at any point of time in the presence of other tenants. He denied suggestion that the defendant had never met him personally at any point of time.
14.He admitted that he mentioned in his chief affidavit that the original of lease agreement dated 05.02.2012 is in the custody of the defendant. He cannot say if he had mentioned in his plaint that the original of lease deed was in custody of the defendant. He denied suggestion that no agreement was executed on 05.2.2012 and therefore it was not in the custody of the defendant. He denied suggestion that he filed instant case to avoid payment of rents. He
admitted that the defendant got issued a legal notice to
vacate the suit schedule property. He admitted that he had not vacated the premises as on today. He admitted that he did not get a reply notice issued to the above mentioned notice. He denied suggestion that he did not have any right to continue in the suit
Page No. 14O.S. No.307 of 2016
schedule property as a tenant and he was liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property.
15. Re-Examination :- PW1 testified that there were three mulgis covered by five shutters.
16.When Cross Examined he testified that there were five shutters for three mulgis.
He admitted that there are five shutters for three mulgis. He denied suggestion that he paid rents on the basis of shutters.
17.Defendant got himself examined as DW1 and in his examination in chief reiterated the contents of his written statement. He denied suggestion that he was not a party to the present suit. He denied suggestion that his wife was a party to the suit and he was not a party to the suit. The plaintiff had filed the present suit on the ground that he would not vacate the suit property that he filed the suits for eviction of the plaintiff. The defendant did not get executed any GPA in his favour. Witness acts that defendant was his wife and he was collecting rents. His wife and himself filed the instant suit. The
Page No. 15O.S. No.307 of 2016
present suit is filed by the tenant. The plaintiff had taken three mulgis on rent with five shutters. He admitted that each shutter has numbers. In shutter No.2 the plaintiff is doing business in the name and style of M/s.Hy-Life Haj and Imara Tours and Travels. No written lease was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the year 2012 the plaintiff was inducted in the suit schedule mulgis as a tenant. The monthly rent for mulgi No.2 is Rs.6,000/- per month. He denied suggestion that the monthly rent for shutter No.2 is Rs.1,210/-.
He did not know the area and extent of shutter No.2. They have received Rs.10,05,000/-. The plaintiff used to pay the rents by way of cash to DW1 and not to DW1’s wife as DW1 was a pardha nashin lady.
He was maintaining accounts for the monthly rents paid by the plaintiff. He was not an income tax assessee. He did not issue receipts for the rents paid by the tenant. He did not maintain any written record for accounts of monthly rents paid by the tenant. He did not mention the receipt of monthly rents in any note book or in any ledger. He has a bank account in his name.
18.He obtained loan from Union Bank. He took Rs.32,00,000/- as
Page No. 16O.S. No.307 of 2016
loan from Union Bank. He constructed building consisting of ground plus two floors. In the ground floor he constructed mulgis and the first and second floor are meant for residential purpose. The plaintiff is residing in another house in the locality where the suit schedule property is situated. The plaintiff paid rents upto 31st January 2016.
He admitted that there were cordial terms between the plaintiff and the defendant from 2012 to 2016. He denied suggestion 12.03.2016 he went to the suit schedule mulgi and demanded the plaintiff to pay the enhanced rents and the plaintiff refused for the same. He denied suggestion that on 21.03.2016 at about 7.00 pm he created nuisance at the suit schedule property and tried to disposes the plaintiff illegally. He denied suggestion that he threatened the plaintiff on 21.03.2016 and humiliated him.
19.He could not re-collect the incident that had taken place on 14.04.2016. He did not remember if the plaintiff had obtained any interim injunction order against the defendant. He did not know if the plaintiff is depositing the rents as per the orders of the court vide orders dated 13.10.2016 in I.A.No.250/2016. He did not know that
Page No. 17O.S. No.307 of 2016
the plaintiff got orders from this court. His counsel did not him about the interim injunction orders that was granted in favour of plaintiff .
20.He did not know Advocate Sunil Kumar. A notice was served through Sunil Kumar advocate vide Ex.A5 to the plaintiff. He did not know if the plaintiff had given reply to the notice. He cannot identify shutter No.2 under Ex.A1. Issues arose between the plaintiff and the defendant in the month of Septermber 2015. The dispute started on the ground that the plaintiff had neither paid the rent nor vacated the mulgis. He denied suggestion that a panchayat was held in the presence of elders. He denied suggestion that plaintiff had given
Rs.8,20,000/- as security deposit. He did not get any legal notice issued to the plaintiff in the year 2015 to vacate the suit schedule property. He applied for the permission of GHMC to construct but
GHMC did not grant permission. Witness added that he applied for
BRS. He did not remember in which year he filed application for sanction for construction from GHMC. At the time of purchase the suit schedule mulgi it was an open place and there was only one room which that was in a dilapidated condition. He did not know whether
Page No. 18O.S. No.307 of 2016
he filed the sale deed of the suit schedule property before this court.
He denied suggestion that he developed enemity against the plaintiff on allegation that plaintiff was not paying rents and not vacating the mulgies. No quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant. He denied suggestion that they threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule mulgi. The plaintiff filed the present suit on the ground that he would not vacate the mulgis. The written statement was filed by the present counsel. He testified that himself and his wife had given instructions to their counsel to prepare written statement. He denied suggestion that they had made alteration and additions to the old building and renovated the old building into a new building. He knew the contents of his chief affidavit. He admitted in his chief affidavit in para No.5 he stated in that mulgi No.3 there are three shutters i.e., shutter No.3, shutter No.4 and shutter No.5. The monthly rent is Rs.6,000/- for mulgi No.2. The mulgi No.3 was consisting of shutter No.3, 4 and 5. He denied suggestion that the monthly rent for shutter no.4 is Rs.1,210/-. He denied suggestion that what he mentioned in his chief affidavit is false. The plaintiff had alleged that he had beaten him in the month of September 2015 and
Page No. 19O.S. No.307 of 2016
he does not remember the date. He had not filed any document or copy of police complaint or any medical record to prove that he lodged a report with police and he was referred to Gandhi Hospital as alleged by him in the evidence. The plaintiff did not beat him nor attacked him. He did not file any documentary proof to show that the plaintiff had been paying rent of Rs.6,000/- for mulgi No.2 and
Rs.20,000/- to mulgi No.3 and Rs.9,000/- to mulgi No.4. He denied suggestion that the plaintiff was not paying rents as stated.
21.He denied suggestion that plaintiff has been apprehending that he would be dispossessed forcibly from the suit schedule property. He was not in possession of written lease deed.
22.DW2 testified that he is the third party to the instant proceedings as such he is acquainted with the facts of the case. He contended that the house bearing No.1-8-506/2/3/2, situated at
Prakash Nagar, Secunderabad and it belongs to Abdul Raheem and his wife Quairunnisa. It was contended that Quairunnisa purchased a plot and constructed a building consisting of two floors. The ground
Page No. 20O.S. No.307 of 2016
floor portion is constructed for commercial purpose. He contended that Abdul Raheem had let out three mulgis to Md.Shafiuddin in the year 2012 on an oral tenancy. DW2 testified that DW2 was carrying on business in one mulgi as Hy-Life Haj and Umarah and Tours and
Travels and in another mulgi plaintiff was running kiran general stores and in one mulgi the plaintiff was running Hy-Life Poultry and Mutton business. DW2 testified that Mohd. Shafiuddin was running business in three mulgis situated in ground floor. There are four mulgis out of which Mohd. Saifuddin had taken lease of three mulgis and the remaining one mulgi was let out to another tenant who was running a tailoring shop.
23.DW2 testified that he was the owner of neighbouring property bearing house No.1-8-439/2, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet that they had let out four mulgis for commercial use and for each mulgi the tenants are paying Rs.12,000/- per month. The tenancy is an oral tenancy.
He further testified that Mohd. Shafiuddin is having a property near to the suit schedule property. He had let out to a tenant and the tenant was running a hotel business in the property in the name and style of
Page No. 21O.S. No.307 of 2016
Royal Cafe. He was getting a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month from the tenant who was running hotel business and has been getting a sum of
Rs.300/- per day from the tenant who was running a pan shop. The alleged rent stated by the plaintiff in the plaint is totally false and baseless.
24.DW2 testified that he knew that Mohd.Shafiuddin was paying a rent of Rs.6,000/- for mulgi No.2 and has been running Haj and
Umarah Tours and Travels business. It was also contended that in mulgi no.3 the petitioner has been running Hy-Life Kirana and General
Stores business and has been paying a rent of Rs.20,000/- per month.
It was further contended that in mulgi No.4 the plaintiff was running
Hy-Life Poultry and Mutton business by paying Rs.9,000/- per month.
The said rent was fixed at the time of inception of tenancy. The tenancy is an oral tenancy. It was further contended that Mr.Abdul
Raheem and his family members are peace loving people. They had never had any quarrel with any one much less than Shafuddin at any time and had never threatened him to evict him forcibly. In fact
Mohd. Shafiuddin had attacked Abdul Raheem and he was
Page No. 22O.S. No.307 of 2016
hospitalized. That local people pacified the matter and made
Mr.Abdul Raheem to withdraw his complaint lodged with police.
25.When Cross examined DW2 testified that he was working as a proprietor of KMHM Overseas Consultancy dealing with recruitment services. He had been present in the court hall while the evidence was being recorded in O.S.No.77/2017 and 78/2017. He did not receive any summons from the court to give evidence. He was a witness to the present suit. There were no criminal cases against him or his company, which is into recruitment business.
26.He denied suggestion that there were three cases pending against him in P.S, Begumpet. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff namely Md.Shafiuddin in connection with disputes pertaining to payment of rent.
27.DW2 testified that the plaintiff is a tenant of suit schedule mulgi. The owner of the suit schedule mulgi is Abdul Raheem. He did not know if the wife of Abdul Raheem was not the owner of suit
Page No. 23O.S. No.307 of 2016
schedule property. He had signed on his chief affidavit after going through the contents of the affidavit. He testified that the statement made by him in the chief affidavit was that Abdul Raheem and his wife are the owners of suit schedule property is a correct statement
28.He had not personally seen the title document of Abdul Raheem and his wife. He did not know from whom they have the purchased the house property. He did not know in which year the property was purchased by the defendant. He did not know what was the door no of the suit schedule mulgi at the time of purchase and what was the present door no of the suit schedule mulgi.
29.The suit building consists of a cellar, ground and first floor. He denied suggestion that building consists of ground and two upper floors and he was deposing falsely. He mentioned in his chief affidavit that the suit building consists of ground floor and two upper floors and it was incorrect statement. He did not know how many floors are there in the suit schedule building when it was purchased. He cannot say what was the structure of the suit schedule property at the time
Page No. 24O.S. No.307 of 2016
of his purchase. The defendant did not obtain permission from GHMC while construction of suit building. He cannot say in which year the suit building was constructed. He did not know about the defendant.
He did not know if a lease agreement was executed and he had not witnessed the execution of lease agreement. He did not know whether the tenancy was oral or in writing and the nature of the tenancy between the plaintiff and the tenant.
30.The following question was put by the counsel of plaintiff to DW2:
Q. If it was mentioned in his chief affidavit that the tenancy is oral tenancy and if the statement was false statement.
Ans : I cannot say what is the nature of the tenancy either oral or written between the parties.
31.DW2 testified that he is the owner of House No.1-8-439/2,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet. There were four mulgies in his building.
He had written a rental agreement executed between himself and his tenant. He had not filed it in the court, which was pertaining to his
Page No. 25O.S. No.307 of 2016
properties comprising of four mulgis. For four mulgis he has been receiving rent of Rs.12,000/- per month for one mulgi and Rs.7,000/- per month for another mulgi and Rs.22,000/- per month for another mulgi and for the fifth mulgi he was receiving Rs.5,500/- per month towards rent.
32.He was receiving rents for mulgi were hotel business being run for Rs.12,000/- per month. He is an income tax assessee. He furnishes details of rental amount in his income tax Returns. He wrongly mentioned in his chief affidavit that he was receiving a sum of Rs.18,000 /- for each mulgi. It was mentioned in his chief affidavit that he was receiving Rs.18,000/- per month were he has been running hotel business. He can speak english. He exactly did not know the quantum of rents paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. He did not know if there were any disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. He admitted that there were disputes between the land lady and the tenant in respect of payment of rents as the plaintiff was not vacating the premises. Both parties approached court. Once quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant with
Page No. 26O.S. No.307 of 2016
regard to payment of enhanced rents eviction of premises and disconnection of electricity. The quarrels taken place in the year 2015. After filing of the present suit no quarrel had taken place in the locality. He did not know what was the agreed rent between the plaintiff and the defendant pertaining to the suit schedule property.
He did not know the if the rents were agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant as mentioned in para no.4. of his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief as Rs.6,000/- per month, Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.9,000/- per month. He did not know the nature of quarrel that had taken place between the plaintiff and the husband of defendant. He denied suggestion that the defendant and her husband threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule premises and the said threat is being continued. He had witnessed the quarrel that had taken place between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant. But he had not intervened. He denied suggestion that he did not know the facts of the case.
33.DW3 testified in his chief examination that he is the son of the defendant and therefore he was acquainted with the facts of the case.
Page No. 27O.S. No.307 of 2016
He contends that his father had let out three mulgies to
Md.Shafiuddin in house bearing No.1-8-506/2/3/2, situated at Prakash
Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad. In mulgi No.2 he was running Haj and Umrah Tours and Travels on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. In mulgi No.3 he was running Kirana and General stores business and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- for mulgi No.3. That the plaintiff has been running Hy-Life Poultry and Mutton business in mulgi No.4 and has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- per month for the mulgi.
34.The house property was newly constructed and the mulgies were let out to the plaintiff. It was contended that the plaintiff with a view to harass them stopped paying rents from the month of
December 2015 and further the plaintiff has been unnecessarily quarreling with her.
35.The plaintiff was misleading the court that he has paying a rent of Rs.1,210/- for each shutter. He further testified that he had not let out to the plaintiff shutter wise. His parent had given legal notice to
Page No. 28O.S. No.307 of 2016
the plaintiff to vacate the mulgies but the plaintiff was illegally enjoying the property without any right and without paying rent. As such the eviction proceedings were initiated before this court. On the intervening night of 02.09.2015 the plaintiff had high handedly picked up quarrel with them and had created nuisance and man handled his father. His father fell down and received injuries and had become unconscious. Immediately police from Begumpet Police Station arrived and shifted him to Gandhi Hospital. While he was under treatment plaintiff pressurized his father through local leaders to withdraw the case and had tendered apology as such his father did not pursue the matter.
36.Neither his parents nor any of his family member had threatened the plaintiff to evict them forcibly.
37.When cross examined he admitted that the defendant is his mother and she is the owner of the suit schedule mulgi and the entire building. He did not know whether the defendant had filed the sale deed for the entire building as per his knowledge defendant had
Page No. 29O.S. No.307 of 2016
purchased the building from one Shekar. At the time of purchasing the property it was an open plot and not old building. He admitted that there was a small room in the plot by the time of his purchase and it was also given municipal door no. The door no. of the room is 1-8-506/2/B/2 due to typographical mistakes in his chief affidavit in para no.2 instead of B the number 3 was typed with regard to house number. After four to five days of filing his chief affidavit he found that there was a typographical mistake. He admitted that he did not file any amendment petition to change the house number. He admits that defendant was not examined as witness. He denied suggestion that at the time of recording evidence DW1 and DW2 he was present
in the court hall. The witness again said that he did not remember if
he was standing outside the court hall. There was no rental agreement with plaintiff. He denied suggestion that there was a rental agreement with the plaintiff and he was deposing falsely. He admitted that there were three mulgies consisting of five shutters.
After going through Ex.A1 map the witness said that he cannot understand the division of mulgies and shutters. There are no receipts for the rents paid by the plaintiff. They never recorded the
Page No. 30O.S. No.307 of 2016
rents paid by the plaintiff. He did not know the income tax details of his parents. He did not know about the payment of property tax on rental income as stated in his chief affidavit and his father knows about those details. He denied suggestion that the rental details stated by him in his affidavits are false. He did not know if the suit schedule property is in shutter no.4. He denied suggestion that the monthly rent for shutter no.6 is Rs.1,210/-. He had not filed sanctioned plan of suit building. No sanction plan granted by municipal authorities for the building. The witness volunteered that they had applied for LRS and BRS. He did not know if the defendant had filed LRS and BRS documents in court. He denied suggestion that they made alterations to the existing old building and they did not construct new building as stated by him. He denied suggestion that since the building is an old building they did not file sanction plan. He denied suggestion that on 12.03.2016 his father went to pan shop and demanded enhancement of rent from Rs.1,210/- to Rs.2,500/- and odd and plaintiff refused the plaint. He denied suggestion that on 21.03.2016 his father along with other people on behalf of defendant approached plaintiff shop and tried to evict the plaintiff. He denied
Page No. 31O.S. No.307 of 2016
suggestion that plaintiff never went upto the father of defendant and had never picked up quarrel and his father did not fall down and receive injuries and that they have not approached police Begumpet.
He did not know if the plaintiff has been depositing rents regularly as per orders in I.A.No.250/2016. He had no idea if his father challenged orders in I.A.No.250/2016 before appropriate court.
38.DW4 testified that in his chief examination that house bearing 1-8-506/2/B/2 is situated in prakash nagar, begumpet and it belongs
Abdul Rahman and his wife Khairunnisa the said house’s construction was constructed in the year 2012 and three mulgies were leased out to the defendant in one mulgi the plaintiff was running haj umarah tours and travels and in another mulgi the plaintiff was running Hy-
Life Traders, kirana and general stores and in other mulgies he was running Hy-Life Poultry and Mutton Business. At the time of inception of tenancy the rent that was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff was @ of Rs.6,000/- for Hy-Life Haj Umarah Tours and Travels and Rs.20,000/- for Hy-life Traders Kirana and General stores and Rs.9,000/- for Hy-Life
Poultry and Mutton Business.
Page No. 32O.S. No.307 of 2016
39.Recently he had come to know that the plaintiff had filed the above mentioned suit making false allegations. The defendant and her family members are law abdiding citizens and had never quarreled with the plaintiff at any time. The defendant husband and her sons are running mutton shop at Kundan Bagh, Begumpet,
Secunderabad and they used to leave the house early in the morning and return in the evening they never picked up the quarrel with the plaintiff on any date as alleged in the plaint or threatened the plaintiff to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises at any point of time. He knew the above mentioned facts as he used to visit the locality in which the suit schedule property is situated every day to purchase bananas from whole sale shop located near the suit schedule premises and he knew the defendant and her family members from more than fifteen years.
40.When cross examined DW4 testified that the plaintiff filed the instant suit for eviction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property. He knew the tenant of the building by name
Page No. 33O.S. No.307 of 2016
Shafiuddin. The tenant filed the instant suit against the oral without vacating the building premises. He did not know the nature of the suit. He did not know when the tenant paid the rents to the landlord.
He did not know whether the landlord passed any receipts on payment of rent. He knew the present rent of the suit schedule building. There are five shutters in the suit schedule building. He never saw personally plaintiff paying rent to the landlord. He knew the dispute that took place on 12-03.2016 at about 11.00 am at suit schedule property shutter No.2. He did not know why the dispute arose. He was present when the dispute arose again on 21.03.2016 the dispute between the tenant and the landlord. He did not know the reason for the dispute till that date. He was residing in
Borabanda. The suit schedule property is in Begumpet. The distance between his house and the suit schedule property was about 10 kms.
He was doing fruit business in Begumpet. He can identify the plaintiff and the plaintiff had come to the court that day. He denied suggestion that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and he was deposing falsely.
41.DW5 testified in his chief examination that he is the son of the
Page No. 34O.S. No.307 of 2016
defendant as such he was acquainted with the facts of the case. He testified that they were the owners of 1-8-506/2/B/2 , Prakash Nagar,
Begumpet, Secunderabad. His father had let out three mulgies located in the ground floor to the plaintiff under an oral tenancy in the month of January 2012 for commercial purposes. The first mulgi in which the plaintiff was running travelling business under the name and style of Hy-Life Tours and Travels for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and in another mulgi he was running Kirana business in the name and style of Hy-Life Traders for a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- and in another mulgi the plaintiff was running chicken and mutton business in the name of Hy-Life Mutton and Chicken for a monthly rent of
Rs.9,000/-. From the date of tenancy the plaintiff had not increased the rent even though he had agreed to increase the rent every year.
It was contended that with an intention to harass the defendant plaintiff has been claiming that the monthly rent for the suit schedule premises is Rs.1,210/-. The rental value in the surrounding areas of the suit schedule property is more than the rent agreed in the year 2012.
42.They were peace loving people. His father and any of his family
Page No. 35O.S. No.307 of 2016
members had not picked up any quarrel with the plaintiff and had not tried to disposes the plaintiff on 12.03.2016 and on 21.03.2016 or as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff attacked his father and his received grievous injuries and he was hospitalized while under going treatment in Gandhi Hospital. The plaintiff along with the elders approached his father and compromised the matter and had promised to pay the monthly rents regularly and had assured that he would not harass the plaintiff but he failed to keep up the promise. He submitted that the plaintiff himself misused the suit schedule property and he created nuisance not only to the plaintiff but also to the residence of the locality. The plaintiff has been throwing all the waste material and dirty water out of the chicken shop on the road.
They are staying in the first floor of the suit schedule property. Due to the activities of the plaintiff foul smell is emanating from the shop and it had become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and files. The was doing unlawful activities only to harass the defendant. The local people had complained to the police and the police called the plaintiff to the police station and reprimanded him. Inspite of being reprimanded the plaintiff continued to do similar things. The plaintiff
Page No. 36O.S. No.307 of 2016
has no right to file any case against the true owner as the plaintiff committed default in payment of rents.
43.When cross examined DW5 testified that he did not know if he had filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was the owner of house No.1-8-506/2/B/2 located at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet. The plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that he did not want to vacate shutter No.2 covered by the suit schedule property. He do not know the nature of the suit and the relief sought by the plaintiff. He had read the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief and subscribed his signature to the affidavit. He did not complete his graduation. He was a graduation drop out. After understanding the contents of the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination he appended his signature to the affidavit. The suit schedule shutter no.2 was owned by his mother and it was being managed by his father. His father was maintaining shutter No.2. Shutter No.2 is located in the ground floor of the building. Shutter No.2 was in occupation of the plaintiff as a tenant. The lease was an oral lease. There were three mulgies but five shutters. He admitted that five shutters were let out
Page No. 37O.S. No.307 of 2016
separately to the plaintiff. He cannot say the extent of area of each shutter. He did not know in respect of which shutter the suit is filed.
He did not know for which shutter he was giving evidence. They have not opened any bank account enabling the plaintiff to deposit the rents. They are not maintaining any ledger accounts with regard to payment of rent by the plaintiff. He did not know the boundaries of shutter No.2. Witness acts that shutter No.2 is a big shutter. They have not been issuing receipts after they received the rents from the plaintiff. He did not know which shutter was fetching what rent.
Witness added that the defendant has been receiving a total amount of Rs.40,000/- as rent for all the five shutters. He did not know if the plaintiff was paying Rs.1,210/- as rent for shutter No.2. He admitted that there was a misunderstanding between his father and plaintiff.
He denied suggestion that they were trying forcibly to evict the tenant without following due process of law. They have not gone through the plaint filed by the plaintiff. He denied suggestion that he did not know anything about the place and the quantum of the rent that was being paid for shutter No.2. He did not know if a plaintiff had obtained any order from the court in pursuance of court order. He
Page No. 38O.S. No.307 of 2016
admitted that plaintiff is running poultry business. He admitted that plaintiff does his business peacefully in his business hours. During his business hours they do not approach the plaintiff. The presence of the plaintiff had beaten his father and therefore they filed a criminal case against plaintiff. They had not filed any medical record to prove that his father had been beaten up by the plaintiff. They filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. They did not know the suit number of the instant suit. The ejectment suit was filed on the file of III Senior Civil Judge’s Court. He did not know the stage of eviction suit and the quantum of rent that was deposited by the plaintiff till date.
44. Issue No.1:
It has been the claim of the plaintiff that he has been the tenant of shutter No.2 situated in the ground floor of premises bearing
No.G.H.M.C No.1-8-506/2/B/2, situated in GHMC circle No.18 situated at Viquar Nagar, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. The plaintiff which is a firm is represented by it’s sole proprietor one Mohd. Shaffiuddin. To prove his claim plaintiff got exhibited A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the rough sketch of the plan depicting the rented shutter No.4. Ex.A2 is the
Page No. 39O.S. No.307 of 2016
photograph. Ex.A3 is the CD. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice
dated 19.04.2016, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is
the office copy of reply notice dated 05.05.2016. Ex.A6 is reply notice, dt. 5.5.2016, Ex.A7 is postal receipt, dt. 5.5.2016, Ex.A8 is another postal receipt, dt. 5.5.2016 and Ex.A9 is visiting card of plaintiff. It has been the claim of the plaintiff that shutter No.2 was leased out to for monthly rent of Rs.1,210/- only. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property was let out to him under oral tenancy.
45.Per Contra, the defendant contended that he had let out three mulgies to the defendant and he had not let out the suit schedule property shutter wise. He contends that mulgi No.3 consists of three shutters i.e., shutter No.3 to shutter no.5 and he had let out the entire mulgi on rent to the defendant for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and he had not let out shutter No.2 separately to plaintiff.
46.In the instant case the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. In his cross examination, he admitted that the defendant/landlord got
Page No. 40O.S. No.307 of 2016
issued a legal notice to him terminating his tenancy. In the instant case admittedly the tenancy was oral tenancy. I am conscious of the fact that the tenant by sufferance cannot be forcibly evicted and he can be evicted only by following the due process of law. It is not res integra that a decree of permanent injunction cannot be passed against a true owner/landlord but a land lord can be directed not to evict the tenant without following due process of law. In the instant case, the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not disputed.
47.I am of the considered opinion that since a notice for eviction was already issued by the defendant/landlord to the plaintiff/tenant the defendant had followed due process of law.
48.Further more PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he has been running three business i.e.,Haj Umrah, Hy-
Life Traders, Hy-Life Chicken and Mutton Shop. He also admitted that he has been paying rents mulgi wise. There is no material on record to prove the plaintiff’s claim that shutter No.2 was let out to him for a
Page No. 41O.S. No.307 of 2016
monthly rent of Rs.1,210/-. The plaintiff’s claim is inconsistent to his own documentary evidence. The relief of perpetual injunction is a an equitable relief and the petitioner should approach the court with clean hands. The plaintiff should disclose all the material facts which would eventually effect the decision of the court and he shall not suppress any material facts. In the instant case the plaintiff’s case is not consistent. He claimed that the suit schedule property was let out to him for a monthly rents of Rs.1,210/-. In the instant case, Ex.A5 is the legal notice terminating tenancy of the plaintiff had already been issued and the validity of Ex.A5 was not seriously disputed. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. Hence, the issue no.1 is answered in negative against the plaintiff.
49. Issue No.2 :
In the result,the suit is dismissed without costs.
(Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11th day of August,
2022.)
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.
Page No. 42O.S. No.307 of 2016
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the plaintiff : For the defendants : PW1: Mohd. Shaffiuddin DW1- Abdul Raheem DW2- M.a.Mushtaq DW3- Mohd. Toufiq DW4- Mohd. Muneer DW5- Mohd. Ibrahim
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the plaintiff:
Ex.A1- Rough sketch plan showing the rented shutter No.4
Ex.A2- Photograph
Ex.A3- CD
Ex.A4- Office copy of legal notice, dt. 2.4.2016
Ex.A5- Office copy of reply notice,dt. 5.5.2016
Ex.A6- Postal receipt, dt. 5.5.2016
Ex.A7- Postal receipt, dt. 5.5.2016
Ex.A8- Another postal receipt, dt. 5.5.2016
Ex.A9- Visiting card of plaintiff.
For the defendants: --Nil--
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.
Page No. 43O.S. No.307 of 2016
Page No. 44O.S. No.307 of 2016
DECREE
IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 21 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT: SMT. B.DEEPTI
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S. No. 3 OF 2018
Between:
K.Krishna Kishore, S/o late K.Venakt Rao
Page No. 45O.S. No.307 of 2016
aged 50 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No. 12-8-413 to 417, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
...Plaintiff
AND
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Secunderation Division Secunderabaad represented by its Deputy Commissioner
..Defendant
CLAIM:- This suit is filed by the plaintiff for granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation, its officials, subordinates, agents, servants, nominees, or any other persons claiming through or acting under it from demolishing or interfering with the suit schedule property.
VALUATION : The total suit is valued at Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Sec.26(c) of the AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.
This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M.Rama Devi, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-
Plaint filed on : 4.1.2018 Plaint registered on: 4.1.2018
That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT:
Page No. 46O.S. No.307 of 2016
SECUNDERABAD.
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
All that house bearing No. 12-8-413 to 417, totally admeasuring 196 sq.yards , situated at Mettuguda, Secunderabad, and bounded by:
North: Neighbour’s property, South: Part of suit property, East:
Neighbour’s property and West: Road.
MEMO OF COSTS
For Plaintiff For Defendants 01Stamp on Plaint Rs. 786-00Exp 02Stamp on Power Rs. 2-00 03Advocate Fees 04Stamp on process
Total: --
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT:
SECUNDERABAD.