Smt. Salma Fathima

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER­CUM­XVII JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE : CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT : SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Smt.Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyd­bad., (FAC) P.R.C.,­Cum­XVII JCJ., Secunderabad.

MONDAY the 18th DAY OF MAY, 2020.

O.S.No.8 of 2007

Between:­

THOTA PARVATESHWAR RAO, S/o. Late Sri.Raja Gopal Rao, aged about 69 years, Permanent resident of Vijayawada and presently staying at Hotel Dwaraka Palace, Raj Bhavan Road, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

...PLAINTIFF.

And

1. R.RAGHU RAM REDDY S/o. Late R.K.Reddy, aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.103, Park View Apartments, LIC Colony near Indira Park, Hyderabad­500080.

2. R.SUDHIR RAM REDDY, S/o. Late R.K.Reddy, aged about 50 years, H.No.70, LIC Colony, Bandi Mysamma Nagar, Near Indira Park, Hyderabad. 

3. SMT.R.SHAKUNTALA, W/o. Late Ram Krishna Reddy, aged 80 years, residing at H.No.70, LIC Colony, Bandi Mysamma Nagar, Near Indira Park, Hyderabad.

4. PARK VIEW APARTMENTS ASSOCIATION, A registered body represented by its Secretary, Flat No.203, LIC Colony, Bandi Mysamma Nagar, Near Indira Park, Hyderabad.

... DEFENDANTS.

This suit is coming before me on this day, for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ranganathan, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.P.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the defendant no.4, defendants 1 to 3 were set ex­parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC., for perpetual injunction restraining defendants and all persons claiming through or under them including their agents, workmen 2OS.No.8 of 2007 etc., from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:­

The plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner of plot no.6, admeasuring 496.2 Sq. yards/415.450 Sq. meters in Survey no.41 (Old

Survey No.29) situated at Ramnagar, Secunderabad, and the said plot was purchased by the plaintiff way back on 20.11.1967, under a registered sale deed executed by late Sri Kodanda Ram Reddy and registered as document No.3392/1967, Volume 201 at pages 160 to 165 and registered in the office of the District registrar. The plaintiff further submitted that, originally the property belonged to K.Kodanda Ram Reddy and his son R.

Rama Krishna Reddy and the said R.Rama Krishna Reddy, is none other than the father of D1 and D2 and husband of D3. Mr Kodanda Ram

Reddy, is none other than the grandfather of D1 and D2.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that, right from the time he had purchased the suit schedule property from the ancestors of D1 and D2, he was facing problem with them. Having delivered possession of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed and having received the entire sale consideration from plaintiff, D1 to D3 started encroaching the suit schedule property on some pretext or the other. Not only plaintiff but even the owners of the neighbouring plots 4 and 5 also faced similar problems, when the ancestors of D1 to D3 tried to encroach on the said plots. Plaintiff further submitted that, having sold the property to the purchasers including plaintiff, the ancestors of D1 to D3 taking advantage of their proximity to the suit schedule property since they were living in 3OS.No.8 of 2007 the adjacent property, tried to encroach on the suit schedule property and also on the neighbouring plots 4 and 5.

4.The plaintiff further submitted that, since the ancestors of D1 to D3 tried to go back on the sale deed and tried to occupy the suit schedule property having delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff and having received substantial consideration, plaintiff was forced to file a suit OS.No.909/1981, before the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad, against late Kodanda Ram Reddy, late Rama

Krishna Reddy and also the D1 to D3 herein and the same was decreed by the said court in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the sale deed is not a mortgage deed and that plaintiff is the absolute owner and the defendants were asked to demolish the illegal constructions made by them and redeliver possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff.

5.The plaintiff further submitted that, in the course of the proceedings in the suit in OS.No.909/1981, plaintiff sought appointment of commissioner vide IA.No.727/1981, to demarcate the area to avoid disputes between plaintiff and defendants and the said application inspite of objections was allowed by the Hon’ble court and a Commissioner was appointed to localize the suit schedule property. The Commissioner made a spot inspection and filed her report. As against the said judgment and decree D1 to D3 filed an appeal vide CCCA No.112/1988, before the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., and ultimately the same was dismissed by the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., on 19.08.2002, and the said judgment and

decree in OS.No.909/1981, have became final.

4OS.No.8 of 2007

6.The plaintiff further submitted that, since defendants continued to defy the orders of the Hon’ble court, the plaintiff left with no other option to file EP.22/2003 in OS.No.909/1981, before the Hon’ble III

Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, directing the Judgment

debtors to demolish the illegal constructions made on the land and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and before filing of the EP., a notice was also addressed to D1 to D3 to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, and D1 gave a reply to the notice addressed by the plaintiffs counsel wherein he had clearly stated that since, he was not in station he could not give an immediate reply and that

Plot No.6, admeasuring 496.20 Sq. yards is intact and none of the defendants are in occupation of the same or none of them have encroached on the said plot and that delivery of the same could be taken by plaintiff whenever he wants and he further suggested that, there was no need to file an EP., and that plaintiff could come to spot and physically take possession of the said plot. Since plaintiff was not satisfied with the reply, he asked D1 to swore to an affidavit to the same effect and on the same lines and confirmed that plot no.6, has not been occupied by anybody and that he is ready to deliver possession of the same to plaintiff or his authorized representative whenever they approached D1.

7.The plaintiff further submitted that, when the plaintiff went to the spot he found small and an improvised shed on the suit schedule property reported to have been constructed by defendants and since the said shed was not removed inspite of the reply notice and the undertaken given by D1, plaintiff was forced to file EP.No.22/2003 in OS.909/1981, 5OS.No.8 of 2007 to take delivery of possession of the property after the existing structure was demolished. It is only thereafter that D1 demolished the existing structure and delivered vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff.

8.The plaintiff further submitted that, delivery of possession of the suit schedule property by D1 on behalf of D1 to D3, plaintiff herein has filed a memo in the said EP., since possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further submitted that D1 to D3 who owned plot adjacent to the suit schedule property are reported to have given one of their plots for development and while constructing the complex a portion of the developed property ie., the portch/balcony of the upper floor encroached on the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the fact that, the plaintiff resides at Vijayawada and that there is nobody to look after the suit schedule property, they wanted to use the open space in Plot No.6, right under the porch/balcony as a passage to reach their portion, though there are other passages leading to the said flats and the flats are named as Park View Apartments.

9.The plaintiff further submitted that, he visited the site recently and he found that D4 was trying to encroach on the suit schedule property as a common passage whereupon plaintiff lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station and the Police officials stated that it is the matter of civil nature and that they cannot interfere in this dispute. The plaintiff further submitted that, he had earlier visited the site on 2.11.06, and met

D1 and also the Secretary of D4 Association and they promised to ensure that no attempts would be made to encroach on the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submitted that, the apartment 6OS.No.8 of 2007 owners/developers not only tried to encroach on plaintiffs property but they had also encroached on the public road and also learnt that the constructions made by the developer ;and later acquired by the flat owners, represented by D4, have not adhered to the sanction plan and are reported to have deviated from the sanction plan in pronounced manner.

It is also learnt that, the property has been developed by none other than the defendants 1 to 3, and that they have constructed the complex without giving a set back as required by the municipal authorities and showing plaintiffs plot as their own and sanction plan they have obtained from the municipal authorities is illegal and was obtained by gross misrepresentation.

10.The plaintiff further submitted that, since defendants once again started meddling with plaintiff’s property inspite of his having succeeded upto the Hon’ble High Court and inspite of having taken possession of the property through EP., the plaintiff is once again called upon to file the present suit for perpetual injunction restraining D1 to D4 and all persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.

11.Defendants 1 to 3 are set ex­parte. Defendant no.4, filed written statement denying the plaint averments by stating that, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction simplicitor in respect of the suit schedule property is devoid of merits, prima facie, unsustainable either in law or facts and the same is liable to be dismissed by this court.

Defendant no.4 submitted that, D4 is a registered society with registration 7OS.No.8 of 2007

No.764 of 2001, under the name and style of “Park View Apartment Flat

Owners’ Welfare Association, Hyderabad”, under the provisions of A.P.

(Telangana Area) Public Society Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, and the said

Association is represented by its Secretary S.Sridhar. D4 further denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plot No.6, admeasuring 496.2 Sq.

yards, covered by Sy.No.41, situated at Ramnagar, Secunderabad, and D4 stated that, infact, there is no place by name Ramnagar in the locality and he is not aware that the plaintiff purchased the said Plot No.6, on 20.11.1967, under a registered Sale Deed from late Sri Kodanda Ram

Reddy.

12.D4 further submitted that, he is not aware that the suit schedule property originally belong to Sri.K.Kodanda Ram Reddy, and his son Sri.R.Ramakrishna Reddy. D4 submitted that, it may be true that D1 and D2 are the sons of late R.Ramakrishna Reddy and D3 is his wife that

R.Ramakrishna Reddy, is no more. D4 further submitted that, he is not aware whether the plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.909/1991, against his alleged vendors as D4 is not a party to the said suit as well as CCCA

No.112/1988, filed before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

13.D4 denied that D1 gave a reply stating his willingness to deliver the property to the plaintiff and his sworn affidavit. D4 submitted that, sworn affidavit by D1 is forged and fabricated and the same is not binding on D4. D4 further submitted that, the memo filed by the plaintiff in EP.No.22/2003, is an unilateral document, having not been signed by the judgment­debtors therein and even otherwise, such a memo does not bind on D4, as D4 is not a party to the said proceedings. D4 further 8OS.No.8 of 2007 denied that, the suit schedule property is being used as a passage to reach the apartments known as “Park View Apartments” and D1 to D3 never encroached on the suit schedule property and the question of D1 and also the Secretary of D4, promising him that no attempts would be made to encroach the schedule property does not arise.

14.D4 submitted that the said builder and developer is a proper and necessary party to the present suit as such the suit is bad for non­ joinder of necessary and proper parties. The D4 further submitted that, the D4 Association has been formed and established for the welfare of the flat owners, numbering about 30, who purchased their respective flats in the residential complex, known as “Park View Apartments”, and the same was developed by “M/s.Sri Lakshmi Constructions”, represented by its Sri

K.Anil Kumar and Smt.Rajita Mala. The D4 further submitted that, in fact, the said developer obtained the property bearing Municipal No.1­2­ 606/80, admeasuring 1775 Sq. yards situated at Ramananda Nagar,

Opposite Indira Park, Secunderabad, from D1 to D3 herein for the purpose of developing the said property into a residential complex comprising of stilt + 5 floors and also comprising of 30 residential flats. The D4 further submitted that, D1 to D3 are represented by their registered GPA holder

M/s.Sri Lakshmi Constructions, obtained a municipal sanction vide permit No.417/22 of 1993 dated 18.3.1993, for construction of said residential complex and the intending flat purchasers have purchased various extents of undivided share of land from D1 to D3, by virtue of registered sale deeds and thereafter they entered into a construction agreements with M/s.Sri Lakshmi Constructions in respect of the flats being owned by them in the said complex and accordingly, by the end of 9OS.No.8 of 2007 1994, the entire residential complex under the name and style of “Park

View Apartment”, has been completed by the said developer.

15.The D4 further submitted that, the entire stilt floor is being used as car parking and an open space to the extent of about 600 Sq.

yards towards North­East corner was left open for Vastu purpose and also for children’s totlot area and the entire stilt and the said open space towards North­east was enclosed by one common compound and certain extent of the said open space is also being used as additional car parking area by the various flat owners and further small functions like birthdays and even sometimes marriage reception functions were being performed in the said open space by the flat owners and thus, the entire area admeasuring 1775 is absolutely belonging to the 4th defendant and therefore the allegation of the plaintiff that D4 is trying to encroach the schedule property for the purpose of passage to the complex is absolutely false and in fact, the plaintiff has no right in respect of the property belonging to the D4 and the said property is a distinct and separate property and the plaintiff is unable to identify the same. The plaintiff under the guise of the registered Sale Deed and the judgments of the courts, is trying to lay false claim on the property exclusively belonging to the 4th defendant.

16.The D4 further submitted that, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 only to grab the property belonging to the D4. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

10OS.No.8 of 2007

17.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial by my predecessor on 29.10.2007.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

18.On 29.10.2019 my predecessor after hearing both sides arguments, framed the following issues.

3.Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor without seeking declaration of title by the plaintiff is maintainable?

4.Whether the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff and property shown as Tot Lot in Ex.B.1 plan is same or distinct?

5.Whether the plaintiff obtained possession from the defendant No.1 under E.P.No.22/2003?

6.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

19.Heard both the learned counsels and they submitted written arguments.

20.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of defendant No.4, its secretary S. Sridhar is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 and during the course of cross examination of

PW.1, Ex.B.1 got marked. CW1 is examined by court and during the course of cross examination of CW.1, Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 got marked.

11OS.No.8 of 2007

21.Before going into the issues, the question raised by the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 in his written arguments that during the pendency of the present suit, the defendant No.4 filed O.S.No.220/2011 on the file of Honourable II Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad seeking declaration in respect of Tot Lot area as shown under Ex.B.1 plan and the same was dismissed on 29.6.2018 and the defendant No.4 being the plaintiff therein preferred an appeal vide CCCA No.313/2018 and a petition vide I.A.No.1/2018 was filed seeking ad­interim injunction restraining the first respondent therein (plaintiff herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property which is being used as Tot Lot as per Ex.A.1 therein (and Ex.B.1 herein) and a division bench of the Honourable High Court by order dt.24.9.2018 granted ad­interim injunction as prayed for under Ex.B.6, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of perpetual injunction and same cannot be granted by this court.

22.The learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of written arguments submitted that it may not be out of place to mention that O.S.No.220/2011 as filed by defendant No.4 association against the defendant No.1(plaintiff herein) and defendants No.2 to 4(defendants No.1 to 3 herein) for declaration that defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for grant of injunction directing the defendants therein including the defendant No.1/plaintiff herein not to alienate the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that it is interesting to note that the injunction sought is not for interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff 12OS.No.8 of 2007 therein/defendant No.4 herein and the fact that the injunction sought against the defendants No.1 to 4 not to alienate the suit schedule property which would establish that the plaintiff herein has ownership rights and incidentally the plaintiff there in O.S.No.220/2011 also claimed adverse possession over the suit schedule property, it means title is with somebody else and not with him and this is the stand taken by defendant No.4 in the various forums. The learned counsel for plaintiff further submitted that, defendant No.4, who filed O.S.No.220/2011 and lost the suit and filed

CCCA No.313/2018 took totally different and inconsistent stands at various stages of litigation and there is no consistency and has never been its virtue, as such there is no bar proceeding with the contested judgment in the present case by this court. More over there is no stay orders in the present case and the Honourable High Court in CRP No.2176/2011 dt.11.7.2019 directed the court below shall expedite hearing of the suit and endeavor to decide it by 31.12.2019, while disposing the above said

CRP.

23.Perused the contentions of both the learned counsels and after going through the contentions, this court opines that the status quo order passed by the Honourable High Court in CCCA No.313/2018, under

Ex.B.6, is not impediment to proceed with this case, which is going to be decided after full fledged trial, whereas the order under Ex.B.6 is only an interim order. The defendant No.4 herein has not mentioned about this case in I.A. or in appeal. The defendant No.4 has mentioned as common passage and has taken different pleas in O.S.No.220/2011, whereas in this case the defendant No.4 has mentioned that they are using the 13OS.No.8 of 2007 suit schedule property as Tot Lot area. Moreover, there is a direction by the Honourable High Court while disposing the CRP No.2176/2019 dt.11.7.2019, that the court below shall expedite hearing of the suit and endeavor to decide it by 31.12.2019 and civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction, as such this court opines that there is no bar to decide the present case, which is going to be decided after full fledged trial and the contention raised by the learned counsel for defendant No.4 is not maintainable.

ISSUE No.3:­

24.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 argued that mere suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without seeking declaration and relied on the Honourable

Apex Court judgment in Anathula Sudhakar Reddy Vs. P. Buchi

Reddy(died per Lrs) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 in which it was held that:

“Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an inference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor”.

25.On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that though the learned counsel for defendant No.4 has taken the plea that 14OS.No.8 of 2007 suit for simplicitor injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable, however this plea was not taken in the written statement run into 25 paragraph and on the other hand in para No.25 of written statement filed by the defendant No.4 it is as follows:

“Further when the plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property, he cannot seek the relief of perpetual injunction”.

26.Therefore, the arguments of the other side that the suit for mere injunction without seeking for declaration is bad, cannot be sustained and apart from that the question would arise as to whether the plaintiff’s title to suit schedule property could be questioned by the defendant No.4, when the only document on which the defendant No.4 relies upon in the present suit is Ex.B.1 sanction plan of 1993 which is

Ex.A.12 in OS.No.220/2011, which is a suit filed by the defendant No.4 against the plaintiff herein who is shown as defendant No.1 in the said suit and defendants No.1 to 3 herein shown as defendants No.2 to 4 in the suit therein. The fact that the OS.No.220/2011 filed by the defendant No.4 herein for declaration and injunction have been rejected and it is subject matter of appeal before the Honourable High Court of Telangana. 

27.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that since the defendant No.4 is claiming title over the suit schedule property only on the basis of Ex.B.1, there is no need for plaintiff to seek cancellation or declaration, as the plaintiff is not a party to the sanction plan, the plaintiff could not have sought for cancellation and so far as the relief of declaration is concerned, it has been established by several courts including the Honourable Apex court that sanction plan does not confer 15OS.No.8 of 2007 title, which is affirmed by his Lordship Justice Rama Subramanian while passing orders in I.A.No.1/2018 in CCCA No.313 of 2019 under Ex.B.6 and relied on the following decisions:

1.In T. Rameshwar Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad reported in LAWS(APH) 2006 (3) 100

2.In Hyderabad Potteries Pvt Ltd., Vs. Collector, Hyderabad

District reported in LAWS(APH) 2001(4) 39.

28.Perused the contentions of both the parties and after perusal, though the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 relied on the Hon’ble

Apex Court judgment in Anathula Sudhakar Reddy Vs. P. Buchi

Reddy(died per Lrs) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 and in that case the

Honourable Apex court held that where the plaintiff’s title is under a cloud

and he does not have possession, the remedy is suit for declaration and possession with or without consequential injunction, where his title is not disputed or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, the remedy is suit for possession with consequential injunction, where there is mere interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession and there is threat of dispossession held, suit for injunction simplicitor would be sufficient.

29.From the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, it is clear that where there is no cloud with regard to the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not to seek for declaration or any other relief. In the present case, the title for the plaintiff is already decided by the courts vide

O.S.No.909/2918 and CCCA No.118/2012 wherein the trial court and

Honourable High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff herein

16OS.No.8 of 2007 which is filed against the defendants No.1 to 3 herein for declaration and injunction and later the plaintiff herein filed E.P.NO.22/2003 in which the defendants No.1 to 3 herein delivered the possession to the plaintiff herein in the year 2003. Whereas the defendant No.4 claiming the suit schedule property under Ex.B.1 which is sanctioned plan issued by the GHMC, which does not confer any title. Hence, in view of the above said discussion this court is of the opinion that the suit for injunction simplicitor without seeking declaration filed by the plaintiff herein is maintainable, as such this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant

No.4.

ISSUE No.4:­

30.The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 during the course of arguments submitted that the boundaries shown in Ex.A.1 sale deed and plaint are different than what is stated by CW.1 during the course of his cross examination and also in Ex.A.3 Commissioner report in

O.S.No.909/1981 and argued that the plaintiff is unable to identify his

property and the suit schedule property as claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property in the occupation of D4, as shown in Ex.B.1 sanction plan.

31.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of written arguments submitted that the point raised by the learned counsel for defendant No.4 is suit schedule property mentioned in the present suit is different from what is being claimed by defendant No.4 as Tot Lot area. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that if 17OS.No.8 of 2007 it is so, why would defendant No.4 filed suit against plaintiff herein in

O.S.NO.220/2011 seeking declaration and injunction and incidentally the

defendant No.1/plaintiff herein alone is contesting the suit in

O.S.No.220/2011. Incidentally O.S.No.330/1996 filed by defendants No.1

to 3 herein as plaintiffs in the suit against Sri Laxmi Constructions and defendant No.4 herein was decreed against Sri Laxmi

Constructions(defendant No.1) in the said suit in respect of same suit schedule property/plot No.6 and the said suit also for mere injunction and that too injunction not to alienate or change the nature of property and the fact that the suit was dismissed as against defendant No.2 therein or defendant No.4 herein would go to show that there was no encroachment by plaintiff therein. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the case of the defendant No.4 is that the boundaries of the suit schedule property do not match with the boundaries as revealed by CW1 in his cross examination. In the above suit, the suit schedule property is shown as plot No.6 admeasuring 496.2 square yards/415.50 square meters in sy.no.41(old sy.no.29) at Ram Nagar, Secunderabad and according to the counsel for defendant No.4, there is no mentioned of Part

View Apartment either in plaintiffs’ sale deed or plaint schedule in the present suit.

32.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the very same owner while executing Ex.A.1 sale deed way back on 20.11.1967 have shown the plot sold to plaintiff as plot no.6 admeasuring 496.2 square yards and to the west of plot No.6 is shown as plot No.7 and to the north plot No.11, when the original owners themselves identified portion of 18OS.No.8 of 2007 their extensive property as plot No.6,7 and 11, it is not open for the successors in interests i.e., defendant No.4 to question the same and apart from that the bridge during the 40 years period between the date of purchase and the filing of the present suit is there and apart from in

O.S.No.330/1996 the schedule to the plaint filed by the original owners

i.e., defendants No.1 to 3 herein is shown as the existing Part View

Apartment on the southern and wet side of the suit schedule property and the boundaries will not remain the same over a period of four decades and in fact the boundaries shown in Ex.A.1 sale deed of 1967 do not match with the boundaries in the present suit. If really the plaint schedule property claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit is different from Tot

Lot area, why the defendant No.4 filed O.S.No.220/2011 before Hon’ble II

Additional District Judge, Hyderabad for declaration and injunction

against plaintiff herein and also impleaded defendants No.2 to 4 therein i.e., defendants No.1 to 3 herein as parties.

33.Perused the contentions of both the learned counsels and after perusal of the evidence filed by both the parties, this court is of the opinion that though the learned counsel for defendant No.4 argued that the property shown as Tot Lot area in Ex.B.1 plan is distinct from the property claimed by the plaintiff herein, but the same is admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination as follows:­ “It is true the area wherein Park View Apartments is situated is also called in several names i.e., LIC colony, Band Mysamma Nagar, Diara village and Ramanada Nagar, near Indira Park. It is true that plaint schedule appended to the gift deed the particulars of the property got 19OS.No.8 of 2007 mentioned which is conveyed by the Raghuram Reddy in favour of his wife

Rajitha Mala. It is true western boundary is mentioned as open plot of D1

Parvatheswara Rao”.

34.Moreover, CW.1, who is the defendant No.1 in the present case and who is the legal heir of vendor of the plaintiff during the course of his cross examination admitted that “He himself delivered the possession to the GPA holder of the plaintiff in the year 2003 and the Tot Lot area mentioned in Ex.B.1 is the property of the plaintiff herein. As such the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 is not maintainable.

35.In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaint schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is the same as shown in Ex.B.1 plan, as such this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.4 herein.

ISSUES No.5 AND 6:­

36.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for defendant No.4 argued that the plaintiff did not obtain the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 under EP.No.22 of 2003 and further argued that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The learned counsel for defendant No.4 further argued that for granting perpetual injunction, the physical possession of the property by the plaintiff has to be established beyond any doubt and admittedly the plaintiff filed suit in

O.S.No.909/1981 for declaration and title and recovery of possession and

20OS.No.8 of 2007 that in pursuant to the judgment under Ex.A.2 confirmed by the

Honourable High as per Ex.A.5, he filed EP No.22/2003 for taking

possession of the property covered by the said judgment and as per the plaint is that during the pendency of the said EP.No.22/2003, the defendant No.1 had delivered possession to him and consequently a memo was filed under Ex.A.7 in EP.No.22/2003 stating that possession was delivered on 2.5.2003 by judgment debtor No.3 i.e., defendant No.1 herein.

During the cross of PW.1, he gave the crucial admissions, as such it cannot be believable that PW.1 obtained possession from defendant No.1 and was in possession of suit schedule property at the time of filing the present suit.

37.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is clear that there are clear findings in the main suit vide

O.S.No.909/1981 under Ex.A.2 filed by the plaintiff against the ancestors

of defendant No.1 in the present suit and also confirmed in Ex.A.5 that the plaintiff herein has succeeded to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property. Moreover under Ex.A.8 the GPA holder of the plaintiff has taken the possession from CW.1, who is the defendant No.1 herein.

38.Perused the contentions of both the learned counsels and after going through the evidence on record under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9, which shows that the plaintiff is the title holder and possessor of the suit schedule property and the same was declared by the Honourable High court under

Ex.A.5 and later the plaintiff herein obtained the possession of the suit schedule property in E.P.No.22/2003 and the same was delivered by the 21OS.No.8 of 2007 defendant No.1 who is CW.1 herein to the GPA holder of the plaintiff herein i.e., MV Rao and the same was admitted by CW.1 during the course of his cross examination that “In the year 2002 he received summons from the court in the execution petition filed by the plaintiff herein in respect of earlier suit and he attended before the court and gave evidence. The GPA holder of the plaintiff herein has taken the possession of the suit schedule property from myself and my brother and my mother”.

39.Though the learned counsel for defendant No.4 cross examined CW.1 at length, but could not elicit anything to disprove the contention of the plaintiff that the GPA holder of the plaintiff has not taken the possession of the suit schedule property. Though the learned counsel for defendant No.4 argued that the person by name MV Rao is not real and defendant No.1/CW.1 herein has never delivered the possession to the said person, but it is clear from the evidence of plaintiff and CW.1, who is the legal heir of vendor of the plaintiff admitted himself that he delivered possession to MV Rao and to prove his contention, the plaintiff herein filed

Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.8. Moreover, at page No.20 of Ex.A.2, it is mentioned in appendix of evidence that MV Rao is the GPA holder of the plaintiff herein and he is examined as PW.1 in O.S.NO.909/1981. So the contention of the defendant No.4 that MV Rao is the imaginary person and not real is not sustainable.

40.In view of the above said discussion, it is proved by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9, that he is the title holder and he was in possession of suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit, as 22OS.No.8 of 2007 such these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.4.

ISSUE No.1:­

41.The plaintiff herein filed the present case for perpetual injunction against defendants by stating that he purchased the property from the ancestors of defendants No.1 to 3 way back in the year 1967 and there were some disputes between the plaintiff and ancestors of defendants No.1 to 3 and he filed O.S.No.909/1981 before the Honourable

III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad against the ancestors of defendants

No.1 to 3 and the same is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and in appeal also. He filed EP No.22/2003 and defendants No.1 to 3 delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff herein and when the plaintiff visited to the suit schedule property on 2.11.2006 and found that the defendant No.4 was trying to encroach the suit schedule property on a common passage and the plaintiff filed a complaint before the concerned police, but however the police officials started saying that it is a matter of civil nature and therefore they cannot possibly interfere in the said dispute, as such the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 for perpetual injunction.

42.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. Ex.A.1 is the original sale deed with plan dt.20.11.967. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of judgment dt.31.8.1988. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of report of the learned commissioner. Ex.A.4 is the memo filed by learned commissioner. Ex.A.5 23OS.No.8 of 2007 is the certified copy of judgment in CCCA No.112/1988 of the Hon’ble High

Court. Ex.A.6 is the original sworn affidavit of defendant No.1 dt.26.12.2002. Ex.A.7 is the memo filed by plaintiff in EP.No.22/2003 .

Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of judgment passed by the Hon’ble III Senior

Civil Judge, Secunderabad. Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of sale deed

dt.19.6.2002.

43.On the other hand, the defendant No.4 filed written statement stating that they are in possession of suit schedule property and it belongs to them and to prove their contention they relied on Ex.B.1 which is the sanction plan issued by the GHMC. Except, ExB.1 plan, the defendant

No.4 does not have any documentary proof to show that how they are claiming the suit schedule property as their property.

44.On the other hand, the defendants No.1 to 3 remained exparte.

The secretary of the defendant No.4 is examined as DW.1 and got marked

Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7. Ex.B.1 is the plan. Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 are the photographs. Ex.B.6 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.1/2018 in

CCCA No.313/2018. Ex.B.7 is the certified copy of judgment in

O.S.No.330/1996.

45.On behalf of the court, the defendant No.1 is examined as

CW.1. Though the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 cross examined

PW.1 at length, but could not elicit to disprove the contention of the plaintiff that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

Moreover, the evidence of CW.1 supported the contention of the plaintiff that he is the title holder and possessor of the suit schedule property and 24OS.No.8 of 2007 the same was purchased from the ancestors of defendants No.1 to 3 herein.

46.During the course of cross examination of DW.1, the learned counsel for the plaintiff could elicit the following:­ “It is true that the area wherein part view apartments is situated is also called as in several names, LIC colony, Bandimaisamma Nagar, Daira village and Ramanand Nagar near Indira Park. It is true that as per the development cum sale agreement the admeasuring area is 1276 square yards, and that they obtained sanctioned in respect of 1276 square yards.

It is true that as per Ex.B.1 the builders obtained sanctioned plan with regard to 1775 square yards. The excess land of roughly about 500 square yards is situated towards north east corner of part view apartments.

Initially the builders obtained sanctioned plan for construction of four floors without disclosing excess 500 square yards part of the land admeasuring 1276 square yards. While obtaining remaining sanction for construction of 5 th floor the builder obtained sanctioned plan by showing 500 square yards as tot lot area for providing children park. It is true that there are no constructions over the 500 square yards. There is no sale deed or agreement of development cum sale with regard to 500 square yards. I have no idea whether original sanction was issued in the year 1991 or not.

It is true the revised sanction was accorded in the year 1993. I do not remember who hold the post of secretary in the year 1996. It is true the plaintiff filed petition U/O.11 R.1 of CPC same is numbered as I.A.12/2007 and I got filed counter in the said IA. It is true D1 to D4 filed a suit against the builder Laxmi Construction and my association/D4 vide O.S.330/1996 25OS.No.8 of 2007 on the filed of the IV Asst. Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. I do not know what is the basis to mention the averment of 8 th para of my chief examination affidavit stating that the receipt allegedly acknowledged the delivery of possession of property by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated as such the same does not ban on defendant No.4. It is true that western boundary is mentioned as open plot of D. Paravathesware Rao. There is no document in evidencing that the property 1775 belongs to park view apartments”.

47.During the course of cross examination of DW.1, he himself admitted that “it is true that as per development cum agreement admeasuring area is 1276 square yards and that they obtained sanctioned in respect of 1276 square yards. It is true that as per Ex.B.1 the builders obtained sanctioned plan with regard to 1775 square yards”.

48.Ex.A.9 sale deed between defendants No.1 to 3 with Sri Laxmi

Constructions clearly shows that they have purchased the suit schedule property to an extent of 1126 square yards, but while obtaining sanction plan under Ex.B.1, they have shown the plaintiff’s property as it is adjacent to the Park View Apartments and obtained sanction plan for 1775 square yards.

49.The another contention of the defendant No.4 is that they are using the suit schedule property as Tot Lot area since 1994, but as per

Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 photographs filed by the defendant No.4 themselves, it can be seen that the same is used for car parking by defendant No.4 association and the same is admitted by CW.1 and DW.1 during the course of their cross examination.

26OS.No.8 of 2007

50.The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is resident of Vijayawada far away from the suit schedule property and since the suit schedule property is vacant land and if is used by the adjacent owner for parking, they cannot get any right over the suit schedule property.

51.Though the learned counsel for defendant No.4 argued that the suit schedule property is used by them and it is their property, but except Ex.B.1 plan, they did not produce any cogent evidence to prove their contention that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule property. Whereas the plaintiff herein under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 and through oral evidence by PW.1 and CW.1 could successfully proved before this court that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property.

52.The Honourable High Court in Anatula Sudhakar Reddy

Vs. P. Buchi Reddy(died per Lrs) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 in

which it was held that:

“In a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in possession of the suit schedule property and defendant tried to interfere or disturbed such lawful possession and in the case of permanent injunction, the principle is that possession follows title”.

53.After going through the documents filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and as the 27OS.No.8 of 2007 defendant No.4 association is adjacent to the suit schedule property is trying to encroach or interfere with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and it is admitted by DW.1 in his cross examination and

CW.1 is also one of the plot holder of the defendant No.4 association, they both stated that the suit schedule property is used by them for car parking and the same can be seen from Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 photographs that the suit schedule property is used for car parking.

54.Documents under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 clearly shows that plaintiff is the owner and lawful possessor of the suit schedule property and same was declared by the competent courts under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.5.

55.In the present case, plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1967. As the ancestors of D1 to D3, who tried to occupy the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was forced to file

OS.No.909/1981, and the said case was ended in favour of plaintiff in trial

court as well as in appeal and in EP.No.22/2003, the D1 to D3 delivered the possession to plaintiff. Again due to interference by defendants, plaintiff was forced to knock the doors of this court in the year 2007, and till today he fought for the land, which he purchased under a registered

Sale Deed Ex.A1, in the year 1967. Defendants have been committing acts that are gross abuse of process of law and plaintiff suffered injustice and he is running from pillar to post to substantiate his rights over the suit schedule property.

56.In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff could establish his claim that he is the lawful 28OS.No.8 of 2007 owner and lawful possessor of the suit schedule property and there is interference or disturbance by the defendant No.4 association over the suit schedule property. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.2:­

57.In view of the findings in issues No.1, 3 to 6, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and all persons claiming through or under them including their agents, workmen etc., from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18 th day of May, 2020.

XVII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendants PW.1: Thota Parvatheswar RaoDW.1: S. Sridhar

Through Court: CW.1: R. Raghu Ram Reddy 

Documents marked for

Plaintiff:­ Ex.A.1 is the original sale deed with plan dt.20.11.1967. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of judgment in OS.No.909/81, dt.31.8.1988. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of report of the learned commissioner. Ex.A.4 is the memo filed by learned commissioner in IA.727/81 in

OS.909/81.

Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of judgment in CCCA No.112/1988 of the

Hon’ble High Court.

29OS.No.8 of 2007

Ex.A.6 is the original sworn affidavit of defendant No.1 dt.26.12.2002. Ex.A.7 is the memo filed by plaintiff in EP.No.22/2003 . Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of judgment in EP.22/03 in OS.909/81, passed by the Hon’ble III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.19.6.2002.

Defendants:­

Ex.B.1 is the plan. Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.5 are the photographs. Ex.B.6 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.1/2018 in CCCA No.313/2018. Ex.B.7 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.330/1996.

XVII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD. 

1RC.No.30 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: 

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT: SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, (FAC) Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Sec­bad.

WEDNESDAY, the 27th day of JANUARY, 2021.

RC.No.30 of 2018

Between:­ 

VIJAY ANAND KUMAR JAIN, S/o.M.Vijay Chand Jain, aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3­3­822, General bazar, Secunderabad.… PETITIONER.

AND

VINAY R. SHAH, S/o. Late Ramniklal J.Shah, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, Shop No.4­3­160, Hill Street, Ghasmandi, Secunderabad.… RESPONDENT.

This petition is coming before me on this day, for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Ramchander, Advocate for the petitioner and of

Sri.Imran Mahmood, Advocate for the respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii)(a) of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control

Act, 1960, directing the respondent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the petition schedule premises ie., Non­residential mulgi bearing Shop No.4­3­160, admeasuring 380 Sft. (GF 190 Sft and FF 190

Sft), situated at Hill Street, Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, and costs of the petition.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:­

The petitioner is the landlord/owner of mulgi bearing Municipal No.4­3­ 160, comprising of ground floor and first floor situated at Hill Street, 2RC.No.30 of 2018

Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.1521/2018, of SRO., Secunderabad. The petitioner submitted that, the monthly rent payable for the schedule mulgi is

Rs.550/­ and charges for fittings and fixtures Rs.600/­ exclusive of electricity charges and property tax and the aggregate rent amount payable is Rs.1,150/­ per month as per the English Calender month.

3.The petitioner submitted that, he informed the respondent about the purchase of the petition schedule building on 15.06.2018, and demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property for petitioner’s bonafide requirement and the respondent assured that he will vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.07.2018. But contrary to his assurances, he filed OS.No.423/2018, before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Therefore, inspite of intimation of

purchase of the property and request to vacate the property, the respondent neither vacated the schedule property nor made any efforts to remit the rents to the petitioner payable from June, 2018 to November, 2018. Therefore, the respondent is wilful defaulter in payment of rents and charges for fittings and fixtures from June, 2018 to November, 2018, for a period of 6 months aggregating to Rs.6,900/­ hence, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents.

4.The petitioner further submitted that, he is carrying on

Stainless Steel business in Partnership with his brothers in rented premises No.3­3­822, General Bazar, Secunderabad, in the name and style of M/s.New Makana’s Smart Kitchen and the petitioner intends to open his 3RC.No.30 of 2018 own Submersible Pumps business in the petition schedule mulgi as it is suitable in all aspects for the proposed business. Hence, this petition.

5.The respondent filed counter denying the petition petition averments by stating that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner herein is not the landlord of the petition schedule property which is wrongly being stated as ground floor and first floor. The respondent submitted that the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft., with a wooden mezzanine floor situated at Hill Street,

Secunderabad, of which Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, is the the landlord.

The rent is Rs.550/­ per month beside a sum of Rs.600/­ towards fixtures and fittings. The respondent remitted the rents till date and are received by the landlord Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, which is evident through money order acknowledgments and the petitioner herein has never been the landlord of the portion under the occupation of the respondent. Assuming without admitting, there has neither been any attornment of tenancy either by Macherla Krishna

Rao nor the petitioner herein, as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.The respondent further submitted that the petitioner never informed about the purchase of the petition schedule property on 15.6.18, and in the absence of jural and privity of contract, the question of any bonafide requirement does not arise by the petitioner herein which is self proclaiming to be the owner of the petition schedule property.

4RC.No.30 of 2018

7.The respondent further submitted that the petitioner forcefully tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent wherein the respondent filed a suit for injunction vide

OS.No.423/2018, and obtained injunction against his landlord

Sri.Macherla Krishna Rao and the petitioner herein.

8.The respondent further submitted that the contention of the petitioner herein that the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor and first floor is absolutely false. Respondent submitted that the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft., with a wooden mezzanine floor totally admeasuring 185 Sft. The respondent further submitted that the allegation that the respondent has committed default in payment of rents from June, 2018 till November, 2018, is absolutely false. The landlord of the respondent has received the rents for the period of

June to November, 2018, which was sent by the respondent through money orders.

9.The respondent further submitted that as there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as such, the question of bonafide requirement does not arise. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the petition.

10.During the course of enquiry, to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself is examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of the respondent, respondent himself is 5RC.No.30 of 2018 examined as RW1 and during the course of cross examination of PW1

Exs.R1 to R9 are got marked in confrontation.

11.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing on either side and petitioner counsel filed written arguments.

12.Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondent?

2) Whether the denial of title of the petitioner over the petition schedule property by the respondent is bonafide or malafide?

3) Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from the date of purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioner @ Rs.1,150/­ per month?

4) Whether the requirement of the petition schedule property by the petitioner is bonafide or not?

5) To what relief?

13.The admitted fact in the case is that:­

1. There is no dispute that the respondent has filed a suit in

OS.No.423/2018, before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad.

POINT NOs.1 & 2

14.The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the petition schedule property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.1521/2018, of SRO., Secunderabad, and the rent of the petition schedule property is Rs.1,150/­ per month and after purchasing the petition schedule property, he informed the respondent about his 6RC.No.30 of 2018 purchase on 15.06.2018 and demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property for petitioner’s bonafide requirement and the respondent assured that, he will vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.07.2018. But contrary to his assurances, he filed OS.No.423/2018,

before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,

under Ex.P2.

15.The further contention of the petitioner is that, inspite of intimation of purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioner, the respondent neither vacated the schedule property nor made any efforts to remit the rents to the petitioner payable from June, 2018 to November, 2018, and hence committed wilful default for a period of six ;months amounting to Rs.6,900/­.

16.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant and one Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, is the landlord of the respondent herein and there is no attornment of tenancy either by Macherla Krishna Rao nor the petitioner herein, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent further contented that his landlord has received the rents for the period from June, 2018 to November, 2018, which was sent by the respondent through money orders, as such the contention of wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent is absolutely false.

17.Admittedly, whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship between the parties, the burden lies on the 7RC.No.30 of 2018 petitioner to prove the same. In this case also, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the jural relationship between himself and the respondent as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property.

18.To prove his case, the petitioner himself is examined as

PW1 and reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna Rao, and another in favour of petitioner. Ex.P2 is the served copy of Plaint in OS.No.423/2018, on the file of I Junior

Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, filed by respondent

herein for permanent injunction.

19.The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments argued that, there is jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property. To avoid payment of monthly rents and to avoid eviction from the petition schedule property, the respondent herein is denying the title of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property and he relied on Ex.P1 Sale Deed dt.3.6.2018, which shows that the petitioner herein has purchased the petition schedule property from one Macherla Krishna Rao, on 3.06.2018, vide document No.1521/2018.

20.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner herein orally informed 8RC.No.30 of 2018 to the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property as the petitioner herein requires the same for his personal requirement. But after giving assurances, the respondent filed OS.No.423/2018, on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for permanent injunction against the petitioner and his vendor and the same is marked as Ex.P2.

21.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there is no need of attornment of tenancy in writing and relied on the following decisions.

i) In AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2459, between Dr.Ambica

Prasad Vs. Md. Alam and another,wherein it was held that:­ “Transfer of property Act (4 of 1882), S.109 – Transfer of landlords rights. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer validity of transfer.” ii.In 2004 (6) ALD 236, between Venkateswara Electrical Stores and others Vs. Rajender Singh, wherein it was held that:­ “A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i) – Eviction – Wilful Default – Tenants aware of change of ownership of leasehold premises. If they still continue to deposit rents in the account of previous landlord, they must be held to have committed wilful default in payment of rent. They are liable for eviction.” iii.In1997 (3) ALD 378, between Mudunuri

Suryanarayanaraju Vs. Korukonda Apparao, wherein it was held that:­ “Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 109 – Sale of building in the occupation of a tenant. Tenant under the erstwhile owner would become a tenant of transferee. No attornment of tenancy is necessary.” 9RC.No.30 of 2018 iv)In 2015 (2) ALD 162, between Agarwal Bros. Vs. Savithri Bai, wherein it was held that:­ “Petitioner filed counter feigning ignorance about respondent and denied existence of any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent and themselves and pleaded that original landlord did not inform them of any transfer of ownership, much less attornment of tenancy at any point of time.”

v)2006 (5) ALD 313, between Regulavasa Rama Rao Vs.

Munagavalasa Kanakaratnam,

22.On the other hand, to disprove the contentions of the respondent, the respondent himself is examined as RW1 and reiterated the contents of the counter filed by him in his chief examination affidavit. During the course of cross­examination of PW1,

Exs.R1 to R9 are got marked in confrontation. Exs.R1 to R6 are the

Photographs along with CD. Ex.R7 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12, vide Document No.1716/2012. Ex.R8 is the Photographs (2 Nos.). Ex.R9 is the Online printout of GST Number in respect of the business New Makhana Smart Kitchen extention.

23.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent herein. Further argued that one

Mr.Mancherla Krishna Rao, is the landlord of the respondent herein and he is regularly paying the monthly rents to him. The respondent counsel further argued that the respondent is not aware of purchase of petition schedule property by the petitioner herein and neither the 10RC.No.30 of 2018 petitioner herein nor his landlord Mr.Mancherla Krishna Rao, has attorned the tenancy.

24.Perused the contentions of both parties. There is no dispute with regard to the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule property and he has been paying monthly rents to the vendor of the petitioner Shri Mancherla Krishna Rao, but there is a dispute with regard to that the petitioner herein is not the landlord of the respondent herein and there is no attornment of tenancy notice got issued by the petitioner or his vendor. Now at this stage, it is pertinent to look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of Rent

Control Act.

Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:

“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant;

Explanation:­ A tenant who sub­lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.

25.Though the respondent counsel contended that the petitioner is not entitled to file RC., but from the above said definition which clearly shows that the landlord includes the owner of buliding as well as the person who is collecting rents on behalf of himself and more persons comes under the definition of landlord.

26.On careful perusal of Section 2(vi) of A.P.Rent Control Act, landlord means the owner of the building and under Ex.P1 Sale Deed 11RC.No.30 of 2018 dt.3.6.2018, the petitioner became the owner of the petition schedule property as such, he comes under the definition of landlord.

Moreover, during the course of cross­examination at Page No.2, RW1 admitted that:­

“It might be true that the petitioner herein may purchased the

petition schedule property under Ex.P1, from N.Krishna Rao,

and another.”

The respondent herein is not denying or disputing the document under Ex.P1 which is the registered sale deed dt.3.6.2018. Further, the citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that there is no need of attornment of tenancy.

27.This court relied on the decision reported in 2006 (1) ALT

103 (D.B.) between Shankaramama Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed

– dealing with a question as to whether the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the general provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and lessor and lessee relationship be applied to the rent control proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1960, it is held that:­ “It has to be examined whether the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the general principle of lessor and lessee relationship under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, can be extended to the proceedings under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

‘Attornment’ as defined in Legal Glossary (1988 Edition) issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, reads as follows:

“To attorn” merely means to acknowledge the relation of a tenant to a new landlord. Therefore, “attornment by the tenant would mean acceptance of the new owner as landlord and estopping the tenant to dispute the landlord’s title thereafter. Of course, attornment had to be in good faith and not on account of 12RC.No.30 of 2018 any deception caused on the tenant. Payment or non­payment to a new landlord does not affect the relationship created by attornment. “Attornment” also implies continuity of tenancy, though landlord might change when title of the property passes by sale or otherwise”.

If the transfer of the landlord’s right is valid, and even if the tenant has not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues, the lessee will be entitled to the statutory protection under the Rent Control Act. He cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

The transferee of a landlord is thus entitled to collect rent as of right and he is a landlord under the inclusive definition. Since the attornment is not necessary under Section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, the tenant cannot dispute the right of transferee to maintain a suit for eviction or to claim rent.

A transferee of the landlord’s rights steps into the shoes of the transferor – landlord with all the rights and liabilities in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The Section does not insist that the transfer of the landlord’s rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornement by the tenant being unnecessary to confer validity on the transfer of the landlord’s rights, the tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee­landlord to maintain an application for eviction or to claim rent.

Section 109 of Transfer of Property of Act makes it clear that the landlord can transfer his property in favour of a third party during the subsistence of the lease. The consent of tenant is not necessary to transfer the property in favour of a third party.

In the light of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and the above case law, we hold that the attornment automatically follows on transfer of property on the same terms and conditions on which the transferor entered into lease agreement with the tenant unless there is a contract to the contrary. There is no specific provision under the Rent Control Act, providing for a situation contrary to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In the light of the view expressed by the various courts and after analyzing the above data, we hold that the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the lessor and lessee relationship are applicable tot he proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.” 13RC.No.30 of 2018

28.This court also relied on another decision reported in 2005

(6) ALD 295 = 2005 AIHC 4380 (AP), between Ravula Needlamma

Vs. Sandaiah, wherein it was held that:

“Landlord and tenant – Attornment of tenancy. Property purchased by present owner under registered sale deed, tenant informed of same, by earlier owner asking him to pay future rents to said purchaser/new owner. Non­payment of rent and filing of suit for permanent injunction on ground of threat of dispossession.

Attornment by tenant not necessary as the purchaser under the registered sale deed steps into the shoes of original owner. Conduct of tenant amounts to wilful default.”

29.Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent herein but the respondent himself filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner herein and his vendor on 2.08.18, by stating that the petitioner and M.Krishna Rao, came to the petition schedule property and tried to evict the respondent illegally on 26.7.18, which clearly shows that the respondent is having knowledge that the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.P1.

30.From the above discussion and by relying on the above decisions, this court is of the opinion that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and the denial of jural relationship by the respondent is malafide but not bonafide. Thus, this court comes to a conclusion 14RC.No.30 of 2018 that the petitioner is the landlord of the respondent in respect of petition schedule property. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

31.The further contention of the respondent is that the petition schedule property do not comprises of ground floor and first floor but, it comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft., with a wooden mezzanine.

32.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition schedule property admeasures 190 Sft., in ground floor and 190 Sft., in first floor and the area admeasures 21.11. Sq. yards. Now the point to consider is whether the petition schedule property is totally admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards or not as alleged by the petitioner. To prove the contention of the petitioner, he got marked Ex.P1 certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018. To disprove the contention of the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide IA.No.122/2017, and the same was allowed and Mr.Nithish, was appointed as Advocate

Commissioner and he filed his report along with the Photographs along with CD (9 Nos.). Though the Advocate­commissioner filed his report but he did not mention proper measurements, he just mentioned the length of the property is 16’ x 4” and breath of the property is 11’, and there is no RCC roof for the property and it is an asbestos sheet. Mezzanine floor was shown in the property which is of wood with a total length of 12’11” and breadth is 11’. There is an second mezzanine floor above the first mezzanine of wooden flooring 15RC.No.30 of 2018 and the length is 11” and breadth is 4’ 5” and the height of the petition schedule property is 18’ 5”. But, the Advocate­commissioner in his report did not mentioned correct measurements whether he measured in Square feets or Squard yards. There is nothing besides the measurements. So, the Advocate­commissioner’s report cannot be considered because it is not clear.

33.Perused Ex.P1 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna

Rao, and another in favour of petitioner which shows that the petition schedule property admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards and the same has been mentioned by the petitioner in his petition. Though the learned counsel for the respondent cross­examined PW1 on length but could not elicit anything with regard to his contention hence, the contention of the respondent that the petition schedule property is not admeasuring 21.11 Sq. yards cannot be considered and this court on considering Ex.P1 sale deed dt.3.6.2018, opines that the petition schedule property is admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards.

POINT No.3:­

34.Another ground pleaded by the petitioner is wilful default.

The contention of the petitioner is that, from the date of purchase of the petition schedule property by him and after oral attornment of tenancy, the respondent has not paid rents to the petitioner @

Rs.1,150/­ per month from June, 2018 to November, 2018, for a period of six months amounting to Rs.6,900/­ as such, he is liable to 16RC.No.30 of 2018 be evicted from the petition schedule property on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

35.On the other hand, the respondent denied the jural relationship between him and the petitioner as tenant and landlord in respect of the petition schedule property and contended that he is regular in payment of rents and paid rents to one Sri.Macherla

Krishna Rao, for the period from June, 2018 to November, 2018 through money orders.

36.Admittedly, whenever the wilful default ground pleaded by the petitioner/landlord, the burden lies on the respondent/tenant to prove that he has not committed any wilful default in payment of monthly rents in respect of the petition schedule property. In this case also burden lies on respondent/tenant.

37.To prove his contention, the respondent himself examined as RW1 and reiterated the contents of counter in his chief examination affidavit and Exs.R1 to R9 are got marked. Perused

Exs.R1 to R9 which does not support the contention of RW1 that he did not commit any wilful default in payment of rents. Moreover, during the course of cross­examination of RW1, the learned counsel

for the petitioner could elicit from the RW1 as follows:­

“It is true that from June, 2018 till date, I have not paid

rents to the petitioner herein, as he is not my owner.” 

Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the 17RC.No.30 of 2018 respondent but already in Point Nos.1 and 2, it is decided by this court that there is jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent herein. Though the respondent contended that he paid rents to the vendor of the petitioner herein through money orders from

June, 2018 to November, 2018, in his counter as well as in his cross­ examination but failed to file any money order receipts before this court to show his bonafides that he paid rents to the defaulted period.

Though the respondent contended that he is regular in payment of rents, but he did not file any cogent evidence before this court to show his bonfides that he was regular in payment of rents and paid rents to his landlord. Moreover, in his cross­examination RW1 admitted that he did not paid rents from June, 2018 to November, 2018, to till date on the date of his cross­examination ie., on 5.11.2018, to the petitioner herein. But, after the execution of Ex.P1 sale deed dt.3.6.2018, the petitioner herein became the owner of the petition schedule property and the respondent has to pay rents to the petitioner herein but failed to pay the same. Though RW1 alleged that he paid rents to his previous owner/landlord but failed to adduce any evidence before this court.

38.In view of the above said discussion and admissions of

RW1, this court is of the opinion that the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents to the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property from the date of purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioner to till date. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

18RC.No.30 of 2018

POINT NO.4:­

39.The other ground pleaded by the petitioner is that, he requires the petition schedule property for his personal requirement.

The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on Stainless Steel business in Partnership with his brothers in rented premises under the name and style of M/s.New Makana’s Smart Kitchen and he intends to open his own Submersible Pumps business in the petition schedule property, as such he requires the petition schedule property.

40.On the other hand, the respondent denied the requirement of the petition schedule property by the petitioner.

41.Admittedly, whenever the ground of bonafide requirement is pleaded by the petitioner/landlord, the burden is on the petitioner/landlord to establish that he bonafidely requires the petition schedule property.

42.To prove the contention of the petitioner, he himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the respondent got marked Exs.R1 to R9, to disprove the contention of the petitioner herein.Perused Exs.R1 to R9. Exs.R1 to R5 are the

Photographs of the petition schedule property; Ex.R6 is the photograph pertaining to the business “New Makhana Smart Kitchen

Extention”; Ex.R7 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12; Ex.R8 is the Photographs (2 Nos.) showing the name “New Makhana Smart

Kitchen Extention”; Ex.R9 is the Online printout of GST Number in respect of the business of New Makhana Smart Kitchen Extention.

19RC.No.30 of 2018

Though the respondent denied the jural relationship between himself and the petitioner but the same has been decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the petition schedule property.

43.It is admitted by the petitioner himself that he is carrying on business with his brothers under the name and style of “New

Makahana Smart Kitchen” and Exs.R1 to R9, do not support the contention of the respondent that the petitioner do not requires the petition schedule property for his business. Moreover, the property under Ex.R7 is the joint property and the same was admitted by the petitioner in his cross­examination that his younger brothers are carrying on business in the schedule building under Ex.R7. On perusal of Ex.R7, certified copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12, which clearly shows that it was executed in favour of Mr.Vijay Anand Kumar

Jain, V. Amith Kumar Jain and V.Atul Kumar Jain. Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is the owner of the other non­residential building but failed to adduce any cogent evidence before this court.

44.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the property under Ex.R7 is the joint property and the photographs filed by the learned counsel for the respondent under

Exs.R6 and R8 shows the joint family business carried on by the petitioner and his brothers under the name and style of “New 20RC.No.30 of 2018

Makhana Smart Kitchen” and he mentioned the same in his petition as such, the contention of the respondent cannot be considered.

45.Perused the contentions of both parties and Exs.P1 and P2 and Exs.R1 to R9. Though the learned counsel for the respondent cross­examined PW1 at length but could not elicit anything to disprove the contention of the petitioner that he does not require the petition schedule property. Except bald allegations, the respondent did not file any cogent evidence to show that the petitioner is in possession of non­residential and commercial premises other than the petition schedule building in his individual capacity.

46.Further, this court relied on the following decisions:­ i.In Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in  AIR 2014 SC 3635 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that  “It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him and he has complete freedom in the matter and the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.”  ii) In Basanthilal Vs. Omprakash reported in 2005(2) ALD 284 wherein the Honourable court held that:

“Eviction – non residential building – Bonafide personal requirement – when landlord wants to commence business, actual commencement of business not necessary – It shall be a bonafide one – It should not be

dictated by oblique motive.”

 iii) In Nazeer Hussain Vs. FArooq Ali reported in 2004(2) ALD 808 wherein the Honourable court held that 21RC.No.30 of 2018 “Petitioner doing joint business with his brother in a separate premises – He can seek eviction of the tenant from the premises which exclusively belongs to him to carry on his independent business.” iv) In Vijaya Kumar Patangay Vs. Kedarnath reported in 1999(4) ALD 182 wherein the Hon’ble court held that “Eviction on ground of bonafide requirement for doing business – petitioner has no other non residential premises – He wants to do cloth business in the leasehold premises – His family was found doing such business – His brother was doing same cloth business in another building which fell to his share in partition – Held, the requirement of petitioner is bonafide and he is therefore, entitled to seek eviction.”

v) In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan reported in 1996(5) SCC 353, wherein the Honourable court held that:

“Ultimately it is the landlord who is the best judge of his requirement and he has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of Courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.”

Except bald allegation that the requirement of the petition schedule property by the petitioner is not bonafide, the respondent has failed to adduce any document to show that it will cause hardship if he is evicted from the petition schedule property. This court is of the opinion that the hardship caused to the respondent do not outweighs the benefits to the petitioner if the respondent is evicted from the petition schedule property.

47.Hence, in view of the above said discussion and basing on the oral and documentary evidence and in the light of the above said decisions, this court is of the opinion that the requirement of the petition schedule property by the petitioner is bonafide. Accordingly, 22RC.No.30 of 2018 this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

POINT NO.5:­

48.In view of the findings given in Point Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property.

In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. The respondent is directed to vacate the petition schedule property and handover the physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within TWO (2) months from the date of this order. In case of failure, the petitioner is at liberty to evict the respondent by following due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this day the 27 th day of JANUARY, 2021.

FAC. ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner: For respondents:

PW1: Vijay Anand Kumar JainRW1: V.R.Shah

Documents marked

For petitioner:­

Ex.P1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna Rao, and another in favour of petitioner.

Ex.P2: Served copy of Plaint in OS.No.423/2018, on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, filed by respondent herein for permanent injunction.

For respondent:­

Exs.R1 to R6: Photographs along with CD.

23RC.No.30 of 2018

Ex.R7: Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12, vide Document No.1716/2012.

Ex.R8: Photographs (2 Nos.). 

Ex.R9: Online printout of GST Number in respect of the business New Makhana Smart Kitchen extention.

FAC. ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

Schedule of property

All that the Non­residential mulgi bearing No.4­3­160, admeasuring 190 Sft., Ground Floor, 190 Sft., First Floor (ACC Roof), land area admeasuring 21.11 Sq. yards, situated at Hill Street,

Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, bounded by:­

North:Neighbour’s property;

South:Road;

East:Neighbour’s property;

West:Neighbour’s property;

FAC. ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

1RC.No.10 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER:

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT: SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, (FAC) Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Sec-bad.

WEDNESDAY, the 18th day of AUGUST, 2021.

RC.No.10 of 2018

Between:-

SRI. D.RAJENDER KUMAR, S/o.D.Vittal Rao, Age: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.13-6-457/55, Gayatri Nagar, Shivbagh, Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.… PETITIONER.

AND

M/S. BHAVANI TUBE AGENCIES, Rep. by its Proprietor G.V.Raghunath, S/o.G.Vaijath, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.House No. 5-1-275, Old Ghasmandi, Secunderabad.… RESPONDENT.

This petition is coming before me on this day, for final hearing in the presence ofSri.M.M.Goud,Advocate for the petitioner and of

Sri.D.Madhava Rao, Advocate for the respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4(1) of

Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to increase the fair rent amount per month ie., from Rs.2,875/- to

Rs.40,000/- per month for the petition schedule property by fixing the Fair

Rent of the petition schedule property @ Rs.250 x 160 Sq.ft. = Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of filing of this petition in the interest of justice and for costs of the petition.

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:56:47 +0530

2RC.No.10 of 2018

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The present petition is filed by the petitioner by stating that he is the absolute owner of mulgi bearing No.5-1-277/1, (size 8’ x 20’ = 160 Sft.,

Approx.) situated at Old Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, and the respondent is the tenant and obtained the petition schedule property from petitioner’s mother by name late D.Ramulamma, for rental purpose to establish the

PVC Bore-well pipes business under the name and style of M/s.Bhavani

Tubes Agencies, on monthly rent of Rs.1000/- per month and also agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- which would not carry any interest and the same may be refundable to the respondent/tenant at the time of vacating the petition schedule property.

3.The petitioner further submitted that, the respondent entered into Rental Agreement with the petitioner’s mother for 11 months effecting from 01.08.1995, and the same is filed in RC.No.137/20212, before the

Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. Subsequently, the said

Ramulamma, and her husband D.Vittal Rao, expired leaving behind 7 sons and the respondent herein was paying the monthly rents regularly to the petitioner’s brother Ashok Kumar, upto January, 2012, without any default and subsequently, the respondent from February, 2012, is not paying monthly rents and committed wilful default, for which

RC.No.137/2012, was filed for eviction and the same is pending before the

Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. At the time of filing of the

RC.No.137/2012, the rent was Rs.2,875/- per month.

4.The petitioner further submitted that along with

RC.No.137/2012, he filed Section 11 petition and the same was allowed by

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT

FATIMACONTROLLER CITY SMALL

CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:56:56 +0530

3RC.No.10 of 2018 the Hon’ble court by directing the respondent to pay the default of arrears of rent to the petitioners and in the said orders, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.37,375/- upto February, 2013, and the petitioner received the said amount under protest and the respondent irregularly paying the subsequent rent from March, 2013 onwards. The petitioner further submitted that, as per the Rental Agreement, respondent is supposed to enhance the rent for every three years at 15% on the existing rent ie.,

Rs.425/- which is equivalent to Rs.3,300/- per month since February, 2014, but respondent is still paying rent @ Rs.2,875/- per month.

5.The petitioner further submitted that, in RC.No.137/2012, the petitioner therein ie., Ashok Kumar, who is the brother of petitioner herein also filed an impleading petition for impleading the present petitioner as the owner of schedule property, as due to partition of the ancestral property the said schedule property fallen to the share of the present petitioner herein and the said impleading petition was allowed by the

Hon’ble Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, vide IA.No.306/2014,

dated 09.02.2015, and the respondent herein preferred CRP and the same

is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

6.The petitioner further submitted that, the respondent is paying old rent of Rs.2,875/- per month since last five years without enhancing any rent as per the Rental Agreement by taking the advantage of pending cases.

7.The petitioner further submitted that, the petition schedule property is situated at Ghasmandi, R.P.Road, Secunderabad, near to the city light hotel, M.G.Road, Patny Center, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad,

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

FATIMA

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:08 +0530

4RC.No.10 of 2018 which is thickly business populated area and which can fetch rent of more than Rs.250/- per Sft., and the petition schedule property is admeasuring 160 Sft., so it will fetch monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- ie., Rs.250/- x 160 =

Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner further submitted that, the respondent is doing the bore well pipes business in the petition schedule property which is famous for bore well fittings, pipes, workshop, nuts & bolts and also submersible motors, electrical motors etc., and for purchasing the material as stated, the people from A.P., Maharastra, Karnataka and Tamilnadu are coming to this area.

8.The petitioner submitted that, as the petition schedule property is situated in the main market place as stated above and the respondent is earning per day more than Rs.1,00,000/- and he is paying very meager amount of Rs.2,875/- per month from the last 5 years, as such prays this court to fix the fair rnet of petition schedule property from

Rs.2,875/- to Rs.40,000/- per month ie., @ Rs.250 per Sft. Hence, this petition.

9.On the other hand, the respondent filed counter denying the petition petition averments by stating that, the petitioner herein has filed the present application based on the false and frivolous grounds and the true facts regarding the previous litigation ie., in respect of RC.No.137/2012, filed by the brother of the petitioner herein D.Ashok Kumar, and where RC facts suppressed and false misrepresentation has been made before this court. The respondent submitted that, originally the property ie., all that Mulgi bearing No.5-1-27/1, situated at Old Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, was

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:14 +0530

5RC.No.10 of 2018 obtained by the respondent herein from the mother of the petitioner herein and after the death of the orignal owner, she left behind seven sons and thereafter rents were demanded by other legal heirs other than this petitioner, as such the respondent herein was compelled to file RC.No.131/2012, before this court under Section 8(5) and thereafter the brother of the petitioner herein D.Ashok Kumar, filed

RC.No.137/2012, on the ground of wilful default and personal

requirement.

10.The respondent further submitted that, the petitioner and his brothers have claimed that they have got the property partitioned and thereafter the present petition schedule property was allotted to the share of the petitioner herein and coming to know these aspects, the respondent herein filed impleading petition vide IA.No.137/13 in

RC.No.137/13, in which the Hon’ble Additional Rent Controller

pleased to allow the IA and directed the petitioner herein to be added as respondent no.2 in RC.No.137/2012, and thereafter additional counter was filed by the petitioner herein for which, a rejoinder was also filed. The petitioner further submitted that the brother of the petitioner herein D.Ashok Kumar, filed an application under Section 152 of CPC., to make the respondent no.2, in the said RC as petitioner and the same was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller on 09.02.2015, and aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein had preferred CRP.No.1341/2015, before the Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending and all these aspects have not been disclosed by the petitioner herein.

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT

FATIMACONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:21 +0530

6RC.No.10 of 2018

11.The respondent further submitted that, the petitioner herein who has come to this court with unclean hands as such, no indulgence of this Hon’ble court is required in the present RC. The respondent further submitted that the present application is filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of Telangana Rent Control Act, which is vague, bald and not maintainable and the size of the mulgi is in dispute. Moreover, the respondent herein has paid huge sum of

Rs.40,000/- as refundable deposit which is lying with the petitioner and the respondent herein is paying a sum of Rs.2,875/- regularly which is the prevailing rent in and around the petition schedule property.

12.The respondent further submitted that, since the Rental

Agreement is not registered and it is not properly stamped as such, the tenancy is oral, month to month and the terms of lease are not binding on this respondent and the petition schedule property is situated in semi-commercial area and the road before the property is only 5 feet to 6 feet. Moreover, there is no parking facility available to the petition schedule property. The respondent further submitted that, the petition schedule property is very far from R.P.Road and there are no commercial establishments in and around the petition schedule property and the claim of the petitioner that the petition schedule property would fetch rent @ Rs.250/- per Sft., is imaginary and petition schedule building is a very old building and is of old construction and there are no banks in and around the petition schedule property.

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:32 +0530

7RC.No.10 of 2018

13.The respondent further submitted that, the markets in and around the twin cities have wide spread and these days eCommerce and eBusiness have taken over the markets and most of the business activities are done online and the claim of the petitioner that this respondent is doing lakhs of rupees turnover is imaginary and a sweet imaginary and the same is denied by the respondent. The first and second floors of the petition schedule property are being used for residential purposes. The age of the building is more than five decades old and there are many cracks and during monsoon season there are lot of seepages into the property and whenever orally informed to the petitioner he never bothered to maintain nor repair the property. The respondent further submitted that, he is maintaining the petition schedule property and white washing is also done by him.

14.The respondent submitted that, the petitioner on one hand is claiming for self occupation of the petition schedule property and on the other hand he is claiming for fixation of fair rent which is not permissible in law. The respondent further submitted that, there are no amenities provided to the property except electricity and there are no toilets or parking facilities provided to the petition schedule property.

15.The respondent further submitted that, he enquired regarding the prevailing rents in and around the petition schedule property and came to know that M/s.Sarojini Devi Memorial Library with premises No.5-1-301, Old Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, has got 5

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

FATIMA

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:38 +0530

8RC.No.10 of 2018 mulgies in ground floor which are bigger than the petition schedule property and the same is opposite to the petition schedule property and the above said mulgies are leased out to (1) M/s. Laxmi Sales and collecting Rs.3,800/- as rent (2) Govardhan Das PA & Sons and collecting Rs.700/- as rent (c) M/s. Seven Brothers and collecting

Rs.1000/- as rent (d) M/s. Central Tubes and collecting Rs.1,000/- as rent and (e) M/s. Eshwar Rao Mechanical Works is paying is paying

Rs.2,860/- per month. The respondent further submitted that, the above said rents are prevailing and current rents in and around the petition schedule property and the present application is filed by the petitioner only with an intention to harass the tenant. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

16.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself is examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked and on behalf of the petitioner, Y. Shyam Kumar, S/o. Late Y.Srisilam, is examined as

PW2. On behalf of the respondent company, the Proprietor of respondent company is examined as RW1, and during the course of cross-examination of PW1, Exs.R1 to R3 got marked and one

D.Santosh Kumar, S/o. D.Balram, is examined as RW2 and Exs.X1 and X2 are got marked through RW2.

17.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing on either side.

18.Now the points for consideration are:

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

FATIMA

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:57:45 +0530

9RC.No.10 of 2018

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

19.The admitted facts in this case are that:-

1. There is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondent.

2. There is no dispute with regard to filing of Rs.No.137/2012, on the file of the Hon’ble Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

3. There is no dispute with regard to identification of the petition schedule property.

POINT NO.1:-

20.According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule property and has been paying meager rent of Rs.2,875/- per month since last 5 years without enhancing any rent from 2012, and taking into consideration, the prevailing rent, area and location of the petition schedule property it will easily fetch monthly rent @ Rs.250/- x 160 per Sft. = Rs.40,000/- per month as it is located in a commercial area which is thickly business populated area.

21.On the other hand, the respondent denied the contention of the petitioner by stating that the petition schedule property is 50 years old construction and further disputed the size of the petition schedule property and submitted that there is always leakages and seepage in the petition schedule property. The respondent further contended that the petition schedule property is situated in semi-

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL

FATIMARENT CONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES

COURT HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:59:35 +0530

10RC.No.10 of 2018 commercial area and there is no parking facility available to the property and the petition schedule property is very far from

Rastrapathi Road.

22.To prove the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of petition in his chief examination affidavit and Exs.P1 to P5 got marked. Ex.P1 is the

Office copy of Amended Fair Copy of Petition in RC.No.137/2012, pending on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad,

Ex.P2 are the Photographs (2 Nos) along with CD, Ex.P3 is the Rough

Sketch Plan of the petition schedule property, Ex.P4 is the certified copy of Partition Deed dt.29.10.2012, vide Document No.1990/2012,

Ex.P5 is the certified copy of Lease Deed dt.24.7.2013, vide Document

No.1226/2013. The petitioner also got examined one D.Rajendra

Kumar, as PW2.

23.On the other hand, to disprove the case of petitioner, respondent himself examined as RW1 and reiterated the contents of counter in his chief-examination affidavit and Exs.R1 to R3 got marked during the course of cross of PW1. Exs.R1 and R2: are the

Photographs along with CD and Ex.R3 is the Original Receipt dt.18.03.2013. The respondent also got examined one D.Santosh

Kumar, as RW2 and Exs.X1 and X2 are got marked. Ex.X1 is the True copy of Statement of M/s.Sarojini Devi Memorial Library and Ex.X2 is the Bank Statement dt.04.02.2020, of M/s.Sarojini Devi Memorial

Library.

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:59:43 +0530

11RC.No.10 of 2018

24.The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments argued that the respondent is carrying on bore well pipes business in the petition schedule property which is famous for bore well fittings and the petition schedule property area is famous for bore well fittings, pipes, workshop, nuts & bolts and also submersible motors etc. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the tenant under Ex.P5, is paying rent @

Rs.1,80,000/- per month to his landlord.

25.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner and respondent are not the parties to the documents under Ex.P5, hence it cannot be considered and further argued that the property under Ex.P5 is different from the petition schedule property and the property under Ex.P5 is situated on the main road and the same is at the distance of 2 kilometers from the petition schedule property. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the evidence of PW2 cannot be considered, as in his cross-examination PW2 admitted that he is relative and friend of PW1. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is a dispute with regard area of the petition schedule property and the petitioner did not speak about the payment of rent by his own adjacent tenants.

26.Perused the contentions of both the learned counsel and the documents marked under Exs.P1 to P5 and Exs.R1 to R3. On perusal of

Ex.P2 which are the Photographs of the petition schedule property shows that the respondent is carrying out bore-well pipes business and Ex.P4

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

FATIMA

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:59:51 +0530

12RC.No.10 of 2018

Partition Deed clearly shows that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property.

27.Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that

Ex.P5 cannot be considered. But the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ex.P5 can be considered though it is not proved by calling the witnesses but the same can be considered by this court. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgment in RA.No.12/2017 AND RA.No.23/2017, dt.28.11.2018.

28.Perused the above RAs., and the judgment filed by the petitioner counsel and after perusal, this court is satisfied with the contention of the petitioner counsel. Moreover, in a decision reported in

Madamanchi ramappa Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa – AIR 1963, Supreme

Court 1633, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “The certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling the witness.”

In the present case also, though the petitioner did not examined either the lessor or the lessee of Ex.P5, but the same can be considered by this court. Though the nature of the property under Ex.P5 is different from the petition schedule property and both cannot be compared with each other but they comes under the same locality.

29.During the course of cross-examination of RW1, the learned counsel for the petitioner could elicit the following:-

“It is true, the mother of the petitioner was the owner of the petition

schedule property. As per the Rental Agreement dt.1.8.1995, there

is enhancement @ 5% for every year on the existing rent and @ 15%

for every three years on the existing rent. I have been enhancing the

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT

FATIMACONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 13:00:00 +0530

13RC.No.10 of 2018

monthly rent as per the Rental Agreement dt.1.8.95, till the year

2012. Witness adds that, as the petitioners filed eviction petition

against him in the year 2012, as such he stopped enhancement of

rents as per the Rental Agreement”

30.Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petition schedule property is situated in a semi-residential area, but the respondent himself admitted in his cross-examination that Ranigunj area and Ghasmandi area are thickly populated areas. Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is dispute with regard to area of the petition schedule property but except bald allegation, the respondent did not file any cogent evidence to prove that the petition schedule property does not admeasures 160 Sft., as such the contention of the respondent counsel cannot be considered.

31.The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the evidence of PW2 cannot be considered, but the counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence of PW2 can be considered as he is the neighbour of the petitioner. Perused the contentions of both the learned counsel and after perusal of cross-examination of PW2, it is found that PW2, is the relative and friend of PW1 and moreover, he did not supported his oral evidence by filing any documentary evidence by stating that his tenants are paying rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month and the petition schedule property will fetch rent @ Rs.250/- per Sft., per month.

32.During the course of cross-examination, the learned counsel

for the respondent could elicit the following from the mouth of PW1 as

follows:

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL

FATIMARENT CONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES

COURT HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:58:01 +0530

14RC.No.10 of 2018

“There is no parking facility for the schedule mulgi. There is no

toilet facility for the schedule mulgi. Lorries cannot pass in the

road situated in front of the petition schedule property. I have not

filed any document to show that the prevailing rents in the area of

the petition schedule property is Rs.250/- per Sft., as claimed by me.

I did not get repairs in respect of the schedule mulgi till date.

Witness adds that, there are no repairs for the schedule mulgi. Till

date, I did not get white wash to the schedule mulgi. There are no

Banks at Ghasmandi area. Witness adds that, there are Banks at

Hill Street and Ranigunj.” 33.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence of RW2 cannot be considered as he does not have any authority to come and depose before this court. Moreover, Sarojini Devi Memorial Library, is run by Trust which is not profitable and during the course of cross- examination of RW2, the learned counsel for the petitioner could elicit the following:

“It is true that the ground floor area of petition schedule property is

commercial. It is true that, the area in the vicinity of the petition

schedule property is famous for pipes, motors and other fittings etc.

It is true that, Sarojini Devi Memorial Library Trust is maintained by

Trust people and there are 13 founders of the trust. Sarojini Devi

Memorial Library is not profitable and it is only for public

service/welfare.”

34.Perused the cross-examination of RW2 and in that he admitted that Sarojini Devi Memorial Library, is not profitable and the same is run

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 13:00:15 +0530

15RC.No.10 of 2018 by trustees as such, the evidence of RW2 cannot be considered because the petition schedule property and the schedule property of Sarojini Devi

Memorial Library Trust cannot be compared with each other.

35.Though the PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that, he did not file any document to show that the prevailing rent in the area of the petition schedule property is Rs.250/- per Sft., per month as claimed by him, but the fact cannot be denied that the respondent herein did not enhance the rent in respect of the petition schedule property since 2012.

Moreover, during the cross-examination of RW1, clearly admitted that, at

R.P.Road, the quantum of rent is Rs.50/- per Sft., per month which is nearby to petition schedule property. Though the respondent counsel argued that there is leakage in the petition schedule property and it is more than 50 years old. But, during the cross-examination of RW1 he admitted that, he did not file any evidence to prove that the age of the schedule property is 50 years old and further admitted in his cross- examination that as per Exs.R1 and R2, there are no cracks to the petition schedule property.

36.Perused Exs.P1 to P5, Exs.R1 to R3 and contentions of both parties. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the court cannot completely compare Ex.P5 because, the property under Ex.P5 is different from the petition schedule property and in respect of structure, location and other amenities. But the oral and documentary evidence filed by the petitioner herein shows that the petition schedule property can fetch more than the present rent paid by the respondent herein. Moreover, the respondent himself admitted that since 2012, he did not enhance the

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

FATIMA

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:58:12 +0530

16RC.No.10 of 2018 rent in respect of petition schedule property and he is paying Rs.2,875/- per month since 2012, whereas in these 9 years, the value of the properties have gone up and lot of developments took place, as such the rent paid by the respondent is meager in respect of the petition schedule property. Moreover, the respondent did not file any cogent oral and documentary evidence to disprove the contention of the petitioner that the petition schedule property can’t fetch more than the present rent in respect of the petition schedule property.

37.This court relied on a decision reported in Rattan Arya

Etc., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 1986

Supreme Court 1444(1) the Hon’ble Apex court held that

Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas”.

38.The PW1 herein could establish that the rent paid by the respondent herein is meager by filing oral and documentary evidence under Exs.P2 to P5, whereas the respondent failed to disprove the contention of the petitioner herein by filing any oral or documentary evidence that the rent in respect of the petition schedule property cannot be enhanced and it will fetch only Rs.2,875/- per month after 9 years also. This court can take judicial notice of enormous manifold increase in rate of rent throughout the country which is located in the business area and the petition schedule property is situated in a busy area ie., Ghasmandi area where the business of pipes in the area is famous and the same is admitted by RW1 at Page No.5 that “it is

true, there is business of pipes in the area of petition schedule

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

FATIMA

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 13:00:27 +0530

17RC.No.10 of 2018 locality”. Admittedly, the rent in respect of the petition schedule property is meager and therefore it has to be enhanced.

39.By taking into consideration, the contention of the petitioner as discussed above, this court is of the opinion that, the petition schedule property is located in business area ie., Ghasmandi,

Secunderabad, and considering the structure and extent of petition schedule property, it would be reasonable and desirable to fix the fair rent of the petition schedule property @ Rs.8,000/- per month ie.,

Rs.50/- per Sft., x 160 Sft = Rs.8,000/-). While fixing the fair rent under Section 4 of Telangana Rent Control Act, the court has to take judicial notice of facts with regard to the abnormal increase in the rates in the locality and so the schedule property can easily fetch

Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

40.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent deposited an amount of

Rs.40,000/- and the same is admitted by PW1 in his cross- examination and as per Section 7 of Rent Control Act, the landlord cannot hold more than one month advance amount.

41.Perused the contention of the learned counsel for respondent and it is found that PW1 admitted that Rs.40,000/- advance received from the respondent. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Section 7 of Rent

Control Act, the landlord cannot hold more than one month advance

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT

FATIMACONTROLLER CITY SMALL

CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 13:00:34 +0530

18RC.No.10 of 2018 as such, the respondent is directed to adjust the amount in view of advance paid by him at the time of payment of fair rents.

Point No.2:

42.In view of the discussion in Point No.1, the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule property.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed without costs by fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule property at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month (ie., 160 sq.feet x Rs.50/- = Rs.8,000/-) from the date of filing of this petition ie., 13.08.2018. The respondent is directed to pay the fair rent @ Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and further directed to enhance the rent @ 5% every year on the existing rate of rent in respect of the petition schedule property. To meet both the ends of justice, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner within SIX months from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this day the 18 th day of AUGUST, 2021.

SALMA

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

FATIMAADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN FAC: PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLERDate: 2021.09.14 12:58:29 +0530

SECUNDERABAD

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner: For respondents:

PW1: Rajender Kumar RW1: G.V.Raghunath. PW2: Y. Shyam KumarRW2: D.Santosh Kumar

Documents marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.P1: Office copy of Amended Fair Copy of Petition in

RC.No.137/2012, pending on the file of the Additional Rent

Controller, Secunderabad.

Ex.P2: Photographs (2 Nos) along with CD.

19RC.No.10 of 2018

Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Plan of the petition schedule property.

Ex.P4: Certified copy of Partition Deed dt.29.10.2012, vide Document No.1990/2012.

Ex.P5: Certified copy of Lease Deed dt.24.7.2013, vide Document No.1226/2013.

For respondent:-

Exs.R1 and R2: Photographs along with CD.

Ex.R3: Original Receipt dt.18.03.2013.

Ex.X1: True copy of Statement of M/s.Sarojini Devi Memorial Library.

Ex.X2: Bank Statement dt.04.02.2020, of M/s.Sarojini Devi Memorial Library. SALMADigitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I

FATIMAADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:58:43 +0530

FAC. PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

Schedule of property

All that the Mulgi No.5-1-277/1, (Size 8’ x 20’ = 160 Sft.,

Approx.), situated at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, and bounded on the

North:Mulgi No.5-1-277,

South:Neighbours House No.5-1-277/2,

East:Road;

West:Rear Portion of H.No.5-1-278. SALMA Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL

FATIMARENT CONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES

COURT HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.09.14 12:58:52 +0530

FAC. PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

1RC.No.1 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: 

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT: SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, (FAC) Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Sec­bad.

WEDNESDAY, the 27th day of JANUARY, 2021.

RC.No.1 of 2019

Between:­ 

VIJAY ANAND KUMAR JAIN, S/o.M.Vijay Chand Jain, aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3­3­822, General bazar, Secunderabad.… PETITIONER.

AND

VINAY R. SHAH, S/o. Late Ramniklal J.Shah, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, Shop No.4­3­160, Hill Street, Ghasmandi, Secunderabad.… RESPONDENT.

This petition is coming before me on this day, for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Ramchander, Advocate for the petitioner and of

Sri.Imran Mahmood, Advocate for the respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4(1) of

Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to conduct enquiry and determine the fair rent payable to the petition schedule property and costs of the petition.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:­

The petitioner is the landlord/owner of mulgi bearing Municipal No.4­3­ 160, comprising of ground floor and first floor situated at Hill Street,

Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.1521/2018, of SRO., Secunderabad. The petitioner 2RC.No.1 of 2019 submitted that, the monthly rent payable for the schedule mulgi is

Rs.550/­ and charges for fittings and fixtures Rs.600/­ exclusive of electricity charges and property tax and the aggregate rent amount payable is Rs.1,150/­ per month as per the English Calender month.

3.The petitioner submitted that, he informed the respondent about the purchase of the petition schedule building on 15.06.2018, and demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property for petitioner’s bonafide requirement and the respondent assured that he will vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.07.2018. But contrary to his assurances, he filed OS.No.423/2018, before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

4.The petitioner further submitted that he initiated eviction proceedings vide RC.No.30/2018, against the respondent herein. But the said proceedings may take long time and till that time, the respondent is not entitled to enjoy the petition schedule property on payment of meager rent of Rs.1,150/­ per month. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions in RC.No.30/2018, the petitioner filed the present RC for fixation of fair rent.

5.The petitioner further submitted that as per the prevailing rental value in the locality of the petition schedule property can fetch minimum rent of Rs.100/­ per Sft., per month. Therefore, prays this court to conduct enquiry and determine the fair rent payable to the petition schedule property. Hence, this petition.

3RC.No.1 of 2019

6.The respondent filed counter denying the petition petition averments by stating that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner herein is not the landlord of the petition schedule property which is wrongly being stated as ground floor and first floor. The respondent submitted that, the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft., with a wooden mezzanine floor situated at Hill Street,

Secunderabad, of which Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, is the the landlord.

The rent is Rs.550/­ per month beside a sum of Rs.600/­ towards fixtures and fittings. The respondent remitted the rents till date and are received by the landlord Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, which is evident through money order acknowledgments and the petitioner herein has never been the landlord of the portion under the occupation of the respondent. Assuming without admitting, there has neither been any attornment of tenancy either by Macherla Krishna

Rao nor the petitioner herein, as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.The respondent further submitted that the petitioner never informed about the purchase of the petition schedule property on 15.6.18, and in the absence of jural and privity of contract, the question of any bonafide requirement does not arise by the petitioner herein which is self proclaiming to be the owner of the petition schedule property.

8.The respondent further submitted that the petitioner forcefully tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the 4RC.No.1 of 2019 respondent wherein the respondent filed a suit for injunction vide

OS.No.423/2018, and obtained injunction against his landlord

Sri.Macherla Krishna Rao and the petitioner herein.

9.The respondent further submitted that the contention of the petitioner herein that the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor and first floor is absolutely false. It is submitted that the petition schedule property comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft.,, with a wooden mezzanine floor totally admeasuring 185 Sft.

10.The respondent further submitted that the prevailing rent in the said locality is Rs.20/­ to Rs.25/­ per Sft., and Howrah fittings which deals in GI pipes and fittings pay similar rents to his landlord.

Maheshwari Engineerings who deals in pumps and other neighboring businesses which are in the same alignment abutting the petition schedule property pay similar rents. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the petition.

11.During the course of enquiry, to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner himself is examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of the respondent, respondent himself is examined as RW1, and during the course of cross examination of PW1

Exs.R1 to R9 are got marked in confrontation.

12.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing on either side and petitioner counsel filed written arguments.

13.Now the points for consideration are:

5RC.No.1 of 2019

1) Whether there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondent?

2) Whether the denial of title of the petitioner over the petition schedule property by the respondent is bonafide or malafide?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent as prayed for?

 4) To what relief? 

14.The admitted fact in this case is that:­

There is no dispute that the respondent has filed a suit in

OS.No.423/2018, before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad.

Point Nos.1 and 2:

15.The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the petition schedule property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.1521/2018, of SRO., Secunderabad, and the rent of the petition schedule property is Rs.1,150/­ per month and after purchasing the petition schedule property, he informed the respondent about his purchase on 15.06.2018 and demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property for petitioner’s bonafide requirement and the respondent assured that, he will vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.07.2018. But contrary to his assurances, he filed OS.No.423/2018,

before the Hon’ble I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

16.The further contention of the petitioner is that, inspite of intimation of purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioner, the respondent neither vacated the schedule property nor made any efforts 6RC.No.1 of 2019 to remit the rents to the petitioner payable from June, 2018 to November, 2018, and hence committed wilful default for a period of six months amounting to Rs.6,900/­.

17.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant and one Sri Macherla Krishna Rao, is the landlord of the respondent herein and there is no attornment of tenancy either by Macherla Krishna Rao nor the petitioner herein as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent further contented that his landlord has received the rents for the period from June, 2018 to November, 2018, which was sent by the respondent through money orders, as such the contention of wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent is absolutely false.

18.Admittedly, whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship between the parties, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the same. In this case also, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the jural relationship between himself and the respondent as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property.

19.To prove his case, the petitioner himself is examined as

PW1 and reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna Rao, and another in favour of petitioner. Ex.P2 7RC.No.1 of 2019 is the Market Value Certificate dt.05.01.2019, issued by the Sub­

Registrar, Secunderabad.

20.The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments argued that, there is jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property. To avoid payment of monthly rents and to avoid eviction from the petition schedule property, the respondent herein is denying the title of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property and he relied on Ex.P1 Sale Deed dt.3.6.2018, which shows that the petitioner herein has purchased the petition schedule property from one Macherla Krishna Rao, on 3.06.2018, vide document No.1521/2018.

21.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner herein orally informed to the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property as the petitioner herein requires the same for his personal requirement. But after giving assurances, the respondent filed OS.No.423/2018, on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for permanent injunction against the petitioner and his vendor.

22.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there is no need of attornment of tenancy in writing and relied on the following decisions.

1. In AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2459, between Dr.Ambica Prasad

Vs. Md. Alam and another, wherein it was held that:­ 8RC.No.1 of 2019 “Transfer of property Act (4 of 1882), S.109 – Transfer of landlords rights. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer validity of transfer. 

2.In 2004 (6) ALD 236, between Venkateswara Electrical Stores and others Vs. Rajender Singh, wherein it was held that:­ “A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i) – Eviction – Wilful Default – Tenants aware of change of ownership of leasehold premises. If they still continue to deposit rents in the account of previous landlord, they must be held to have committed wilful default in payment of rent. They are liable for eviction”.

3.In 1997 (3) ALD 378, between Mudunuri Suryanarayanaraju

Vs. Korukonda Apparao, wherein it was held that:­ “Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 109 – Sale of building in the occupation of a tenant. Tenant under the erstwhile owner would become a tenant of transferee. No attornment of tenancy is necessary”.

4.In 2015 (2) ALD 162, between Agarwal Bros. Vs. Savithri Bai, wherein it was held that:­ “Petitioner filed counter feigning ignorance about respondent and denied existence of any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent and themselves and pleaded that original landlord did not inform them of any transfer of ownership, much less attornment of tenancy at any point of time”

5.2006 (5) ALD 313, between Regulavasa Rama Rao Vs.

Munagavalasa Kanakaratnam,

23.On the other hand, to disprove the contentions of the respondent, the respondent himself is examined as RW1 and reiterated the contents of the counter filed by him in his chief examination affidavit. During the course of cross­examination of PW1,

Exs.R1 to R9 are got marked in confrontation. Exs.R1 to R6 are the 9RC.No.1 of 2019

Photographs along with CD. Ex.R7 is the copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12, vide Document No.1716/2012. Ex.R8 is the Photographs (2 Nos.). Ex.R9 is the copy of Online printout of GST Number in respect of the business of New Makhana Smart Kitchen extension.

24.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent herein. Further argued that one

Mr.Mancherla Krishna Rao, is the landlord of the respondent herein and he is regularly paying the monthly rents to him. The respondent counsel further argued that the respondent is not aware of purchase of petition schedule property by the petitioner herein and neither the petitioner herein nor his landlord Mr.Mancherla Krishna Rao, has attorned the tenancy.

25.Perused the contentions of both parties. There is no dispute with regard to the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule property and he has been paying monthly rents to the vendor of the petitioner Shri Mancherla Krishna Rao, but there is a dispute with regard to that the petitioner herein is not the landlord of the respondent herein and there is no attornment of tenancy notice got issued by the petitioner or his vendor. Now at this stage, it is pertinent to look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of Rent

Control Act.

Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:

“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his 10RC.No.1 of 2019 own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant;

Explanation:­ A tenant who sub­lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.

26.Though the respondent counsel contended that the petitioner is not entitled to file RC., but from the above said definition which clearly shows that the landlord includes the owner of buliding as well as the person who is collecting rents on behalf of himself and more persons comes under the definition of landlord.

27.On careful perusal of Section 2(vi) of A.P.Rent Control Act, landlord means the owner of the building and under Ex.P1 Sale Deed dt.3.6.2018, the petitioner became the owner of the petition schedule property as such, he comes under the definition of landlord.

Moreover, during the course of cross­examination at Page No.2, RW1 admitted that:­

“It might be true that the petitioner herein may purchased the

petition schedule property under Ex.P1, from N.Krishna Rao,

and another.”

28.The respondent herein is not denying or disputing the document under Ex.P1 which is the registered sale deed dt.3.6.2018.

Further, the citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that there is no need of attornment of tenancy.

29.This court relied on the decision reported in 2006 (1) ALT

103 (D.B.) between Shankaramama Vs. Mohammed Abdul Hameed

11RC.No.1 of 2019 – dealing with a question as to whether the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the general provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and lessor and lessee relationship be applied to the rent control proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1960, it is held that:­ “It has to be examined whether the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the general principle of lessor and lessee relationship under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, can be extended to the proceedings under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

‘Attornment’ as defined in Legal Glossary (1988 Edition) issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, reads as follows:

“To attorn” merely means to acknowledge the relation of a tenant to a new landlord. Therefore, “attornment by the tenant would mean acceptance of the new owner as landlord and estopping the tenant to dispute the landlord’s title thereafter. Of course, attornment had to be in good faith and not on account of any deception caused on the tenant. Payment or non­payment to a new landlord does not affect the relationship created by attornment. “Attornment” also implies continuity of tenancy, though landlord might change when title of the property passes by sale or otherwise”.

If the transfer of the landlord’s right is valid, and even if the tenant has not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues, the lessee will be entitled to the statutory protection under the Rent Control Act. He cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

The transferee of a landlord is thus entitled to collect rent as of right and he is a landlord under the inclusive definition. Since the attornment is not necessary under Section 109 of the Transfer of property Act, the tenant cannot dispute the right of transferee to maintain a suit for eviction or to claim rent.

A transferee of the landlord’s rights steps into the shoes of the transferor – landlord with all the rights and liabilities in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The Section does not insist that the transfer of the landlord’s rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornement by the tenant being unnecessary to confer validity on the transfer of the landlord’s rights, the tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee­ landlord to maintain an application for eviction or to claim rent.

Section 109 of Transfer of Property of Act makes it clear that the landlord can transfer his property in favour of a third party during the 12RC.No.1 of 2019 subsistence of the lease. The consent of tenant is not necessary to transfer the property in favour of a third party.

In the light of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and the above case law, we hold that the attornment automatically follows on transfer of property on the same terms and conditions on which the transferor entered into lease agreement with the tenant unless there is a contract to the contrary. There is no specific provision under the Rent Control Act, providing for a situation contrary to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In the light of the view expressed by the various courts and after analyzing the above data, we hold that the concept of attornment of tenancy governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the lessor and lessee relationship are applicable tot he proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.”

30.This court also relied on another decision reported in 2005

(6) ALD 295 = 2005 AIHC 4380 (AP), between Ravula Needlamma

Vs. Sandaiah, wherein it was held that:

“Landlord and tenant – Attornment of tenancy. Property purchased by present owner under registered sale deed, tenant informed of same, by earlier owner asking him to pay future rents to said purchaser/new owner. Non­payment of rent and filing of suit for permanent injunction on ground of threat of dispossession.

Attornment by tenant not necessary as the purchaser under the registered sale deed steps into the shoes of original owner. Conduct of tenant amounts to wilful default”.

31.Though the learned counsel for the respondent argued that, there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent herein but the respondent himself filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner herein and his vendor on 2.08.18, by stating that the petitioner and M.Krishna Rao, came to the petition 13RC.No.1 of 2019 schedule property and tried to evict the respondent illegally on 26.7.18, which clearly shows that the respondent is having knowledge that the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.P1.

32.From the above discussion and by relying on the above decisions, this court is of the opinion that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and the denial of jural relationship by the respondent is malafide but not bonafide. Thus, this court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is the landlord of the respondent in respect of petition schedule property. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

33.The contention of the respondent is that the petition schedule property do not comprises of ground floor and first floor but, it comprises of ground floor comprising of 185 Sft., with a wooden mezzanine.

34.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition schedule property admeasures 190 Sft., in ground floor and 190 Sft., in first floor and the area admeasures 21.11. Sq. yards. Now the point to consider is whether the petition schedule property is totally admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards or not as alleged by the petitioner. To prove the contention of the petitioner, he got marked Ex.P1 certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018. To disprove the contention of the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition for 14RC.No.1 of 2019 appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide IA.No.121/2017, and the same was allowed and Mr.Nithish, was appointed as Advocate

Commissioner and he filed his report along with the Photographs along with CD (9 Nos.). Though the Advocate­commissioner filed his report but he did not mention proper measurements, he just mentioned the length of the property is 16’ x 4” and breath of the property is 11’, and there is no RCC roof for the property and it is an asbestos sheet. Mezzanine floor was shown in the property which is of wood with a total length of 12’11” and breadth is 11’. There is an second mezzanine floor above the first mezzanine of wooden flooring and the length is 11” and breadth is 4’ 5” and the height of the petition schedule property is 18’ 5”. But, the Advocate­commissioner in his report did not mentioned correct measurements whether he measured in Square feets or Squard yards. There is nothing besides the measurements. So, the Advocate­commissioner’s report cannot be considered because it is not clear.

35.Perused Ex.P1 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna

Rao, and another in favour of petitioner which shows that the petition schedule property admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards and the same has been mentioned by the petitioner in his petition. Though the learned counsel for the respondent cross­examined PW1 on length but could not elicit anything with regard to his contention hence, the contention of the respondent that the petition schedule property is not admeasuring 21.11 Sq. yards cannot be considered and this court on 15RC.No.1 of 2019 considering Ex.P1 sale deed dt.3.6.2018, opines that the petition schedule property is admeasures 21.11 Sq. yards.

POINT NO.3:­

36.The contention of the petitioner is that, after purchase of the petition schedule property by him, he requested the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property, but he failed to either vacate or remit the rents to the petitioner, as such he initiated eviction proceedings vide RC.No.30/2018, before this court and further submitted that the respondent is not entitled to enjoy the petition schedule property on payment of meager rent of Rs.1150/­ per month.

Therefore prays to fix the fair rent and further submitted that as per the prevailing rents in the locality of the petition schedule property can fetch minimum rent of Rs.100/­ per Sft., per month.

37.On the other hand, the respondent denied the contention of the petitioner by stating that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent and that the prevailing rate of rent in the said locality is Rs.20/­ to Rs.25/­ per Sft.

To prove the contention of the petitioner, he got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

Ex.P1 Certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018 and Ex.P2 Market Value

Certificate dt.05.01.2019, issued by the Sub­Registrar, Secunderabad.

38.The contention of the petitioner that the petition schedule property is situated in commercial area and it can easily fetch

Rs.100/­ per Sft., per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner 16RC.No.1 of 2019 during the course of cross­examination could elicit the following from the mouth of RW1 that:­

“It is true, petition schedule property is in a commercial area.

The petition schedule property is in between the R.P.Road and

M.G.Road”.

39.On the other hand, the respondent denied that the petition schedule property will not fetch rent of Rs.100/­ per Sft., per month and stated that it will only fetch Rs.20/­ to Rs.25/­ per Sft. Though the respondent got marked Exs.R1 to R9, but they do not support the contention of the respondent that the petition schedule property will not fetch Rs.100/­ per Sft. Per month and the documents under

Exs.R1 to R9 do not support the contention of the resopndent that the petition schedule property is not situated in commercial area. Though the learned counsel for the respondent cross­examined PW1 at length but he could not elicit anything that the petition schedule property will not fetch rent @ Rs.100/­ per Sft., per month.

40.Perused Ex.P2, which is the market value certificate and as per Ex.P2, the market value of the petition schedule property is

Rs.10,68,180/­. The respondent himself admitted in his counter that he is the tenant of petition schedule property from 1990 and from time to time the rent was enhanced and presently he is paying rent @

Rs.1,150/ per month. The respondent himself admitted in his cross­ examination that the petition schedule property is situated in a commercial area and it is on the main road.

17RC.No.1 of 2019

41.This court relief on a decision reported in Rattan Arya Etc.,

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 1986 Supreme

Court 1444(1) the Hon’ble Apex court held that 

Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas”.

On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of both parties and in the light of the above said decision, this court is of the opinion that the rent paid by the respondent @ Rs.1,150/­ per month in respect of the petition schedule property is very meager and Hill Street,

Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, is a commercial area and the same is admitted by the respondent in his cross­examination.

42.Admittedly, the rent in respect of the petition schedule property is very meager and therefore it has to be enhanced. The respondent himself admitted that the rent in the vicinity of the petition schedule property is Rs.20/­ to Rs.25/­ per Sft. Taking into consideration of the contention of the petitioner and in view of the admissions of respondent, this court is of the opinion that the petition schedule property which is situated in a commercial area, the rent has to be enhanced as such it would be reasonable and desirable to fix the fair rent @ Rs.4,750/­ per month (ie., 190 Sft., x Rs.25/­ per Sft. =

Rs.4,750/­), as the respondent himself mentioned in his counter that the prevailing rent is Rs.20/­ or Rs.25/­ per Sft. While fixing the fair rent under Section 4 of Telangana Rent Control Act, the court has to take judicial notice of facts with regard to the abnormal increase in the rates in the locality and so the schedule property can easily fetch 18RC.No.1 of 2019

Rs.4,750/­ per month. Accordingly, the Point No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Point No.4:

43.In view of the discussion in Point Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule property.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed without costs by fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule property at the rate of

Rs.4,750/­ per month (ie., 21.11 Sq.yards = 190 sq.feet x Rs.25/­ =

Rs.4,750/­) from the date of filing of this petition ie., 21.01.2019. The respondent is directed to pay the fair rent @ Rs.4,750/­ to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and further directed to enhance the rent @ 5% every year on the existing rate of rent in respect of the petition schedule property. Further, the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner within SIX months from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this day the 27 th day of JANUARY, 2021.

FAC: ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER

 SECUNDERABAD 

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner: For respondents:

PW1: Vijay Anand Kumar JainRW1: V.R.Shah

Documents marked

For petitioner:­

Ex.P1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.3.6.2018, vide Document No.1521/2018, executed by M.Krishna Rao, and another in favour of petitioner.

Ex.P2: Market Value Certificate dt.05.01.2019, issued by the Sub­ Registrar, Secunderabad.

For respondent:­

19RC.No.1 of 2019

Exs.R1 to R6: Photographs along with CD.

Ex.R7: Copy of Sale Deed dt.19.10.12, vide Document No.1716/2012.

Ex.R8: Photographs (2 Nos.). 

Ex.R9: Copy of Online printout of GST Number in respect of the business New Makhana Smart Kitchen extension.

FAC. ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

Schedule of property

All that the Non­residential mulgi bearing No.4­3­160, admeasuring 190 Sft., Ground Floor, 190 Sft., First Floor (ACC Roof), land area admeasuring 21.11 Sq. yards, situated at Hill Street,

Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, bounded by:­

North:Neighbour’s property;

South:Road;

East:Neighbour’s property;

West:Neighbour’s property;

FAC. ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

SECUNDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT: SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, CSCC., Hyderabad. (FAC) Addl. Rent Controller, CSCC., Secunderabad.

Dated this the 20th day of JANUARY, 2021.

RC.No.11/2019

Between:­ 

Y.BALESHA, S/o. Late Sri.Y.Lingaiah, aged about 89 years, Occ: Landlord, R/o.H.No.7­1­701 to 702, Ist Floor, Opp. Rajeshwar Talkies, Market Street, Secunderabad­500 003, Rep. by his GPA Holder Y.Prakash Rao S/o. Y.Balesha, Male, Hindu, a/a 65 years, Off: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.7­1­701 to 702, Ist Floor, Opp. Rajeshwar Talkies, Market Street, Secunderabad­500 003.

…PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF.

AND

PAVAN KUMAR PATEL, S/o. Jashbhai Patel, aged about 64 years, Occ:Business, No.6­3­183/40/170, SBI Colony, Presently H.No.6­6­369/3, Arunjyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad­500 003.

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT.

This is a Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 10(3)(A) (III) (b) of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to vacate and deliver the physical vacant possession of the petition schedule mulgi Nos.7­1­701 & 701­A with dimension of about 12 x 17 situated at

Market Street, Opp. Rajeshwar Talkies, Secunderabad, and cost of the petition and also to pay the difference of 5% increase in the monthly rent as agreed by the respondent from the year 2008 till vacating the mulgi which was admitted by the respondent.

This Petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.T.Poorna Chander Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.S.Sreeram, Advocate for the respondent and the court made the following:

2

DOCKET ORDER

Both counsels and parties are present. Petitioner counsel filed memo by stating that matter settled out of court and respondent delivered the possession of petition schedule property to the petitioner and prayed to withdraw the case. 

Perused memo and in view of memo, this petition is dismissed as possession of petition schedule property is delivered to the petitioner.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2 0 th day of January, 2021.

(FAC) ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,

 SECUNDERABAD.

Appendix of evidence ­ Nil ­

(FAC) ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,

 SECUNDERABAD.