THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5074 of 2009 Dated:- 06th July, 2010 Between:- M.Anjaiah …Petitioner AND Smt.L.Rukmini (died) per L.R.s And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5074 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2009 passed in R.A.No.267 of 2007 in R.C.No.128 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the rent appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the orders dated 04.10.2007 passed in R.C.No.128 of 2005 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, directing the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises and to handover vacant possession of the same to the respondents within one month from the date of the said judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Smt.L.Rukmini – the first respondent herein, was the owner of premises bearing No.6-1-137/14, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition schedule premises’). She filed R.C.No.128 of 2005 under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10-C of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the tenants (one of the tenant is the petitioner herein) from the petition schedule premises. Since the first respondent died, she is being represented by respondents 2 to 7 herein. It is their specific case that respondents in R.C.No.128 of 2005 were the tenants in the petition schedule premises for a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in R.C.No.128 of 2005 and respondents 8 and 9 herein are the respondents 2 and 3 in the said R.C. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.No.128 of 2007. 3. The petitioner is the original landlady. The respondents are the tenants in the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- payable on or before 05th of every month excluding electricity and water charges. It is an oral tenancy. The respondents were regularly paying the rent. The petitioner, being an old aged lady suffering from ill-health, was depending on the rents for her medication and other expenses. Taking advantage of her old age, the respondents did not pay rent to her from April, 2003 to November, 2005 i.e. for a period of 32 months amounting to Rs.25,000/- and thus committed willful default in payment of rents. The respondents were also creating false documents and made false allegations against the petitioner that she tried to dispossess them from the petition schedule premises. They filed O.S.No.569 of 2005 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, and the petitioner was contesting the said suit. It is also contended that the petitioner, being an old lady aged about 72 years and suffering from ill-health, is not in a position to go up to the first floor and come down for her necessities frequently and therefore, she requires ground floor for her personal use and occupation and also for the occupation of her relatives who were helpful to her in her old age. 4. The first respondent filed counter, which has been admitted by respondents 2 and 3. Their specific case is that the first respondent is the tenant in the petition schedule premises and that the petitioner was in need of Rs.74,000/- to meet her expenditure and that the first respondent arranged and paid Rs.74,000/- to the petitioner on 22.07.2003 and that the petitioner passed acknowledgement receipt. Second respondent is the son-in-law of the petitioner. He and the third respondent are the residents of H.No.1011/16, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. The further case of the respondents is that out of the total amount of Rs.74,000/-, an amount of Rs.34,000/- was paid towards advance rents and Rs.40,000/- was paid towards part payment of sale consideration of the petition schedule premises. It is also contended that the first respondent was residing in the premises along with the son-in- law’s brother – J Ramulu and his wife and two children and due to the sudden demise of his son-in-law, his wife sent to her native place and residing there along with her two children and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner is trying to evict the respondents from the petition schedule premises. It is also their case that the petitioner gave complaint to the police against respondents 1 and 2 and the same is registered as crime in Crime No.342 of 2005 and that they approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. by filing Crl.P.No.3130 of 2005 for grant of bail. 5. The learned Additional Rent Controller formulated a point as to whether the respondents had committed willful default in payment of rent from April 2003 to November 2005 and whether the respondents committed willful default in payment of rents and whether the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondents on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises. 6. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as R.W.1, R.Ws.2 and 3 were examined Ex.R.1 – the receipt dated 22.07.2003 was marked. 7. The learned Additional Rent Controller disbelieved the version of the respondents that R.W.1 advanced an amount of Rs.74,000/- to the petitioner and that he failed to produce any document showing the lease from April, 2003 to November, 2005 and, therefore, the respondents committed willful default in payment of rents and accordingly directed them to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of his order. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal in R.A.No.267 of 2007 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the learned Judge, having appreciated the evidence, disbelieved the version of the first respondent and after elaborate discussion, dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned order therein. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the lower appellate Court committed error in disbelieving the receipt executed by the petitioner and that after passing of the order in R.C.No.128 of 2005, the original landlady died and that she was issueless and that there is nothing on record to show that respondents 2 to 7 herein are the legal heirs of the original landlady and that therefore, after the death of the original landlady, the proceedings will abate and the respondents herein ought to have initiated separate proceedings to vacate the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further submitted that respondents 2 to 7 herein have illegally dispossessed the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises when the matter is pending before this Court and thus they have violated the orders of this Court. 9. In reply, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 herein i.e. the Legal Representatives of the original landlady submits that the petitioner herein did not mention neither date nor time of his forceful eviction from the petition schedule premises and in the absence of any specific plea, his version cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that the first respondent is involved in several criminal cases and that he is in the habit of fabricating the documents and therefore, he was arrested in criminal cases and the Legal Representatives of the original landlady herein have nothing to do with the criminal cases filed against the first respondent and they are not responsible for his arrest and that they never dispossessed him from the petition schedule premises. It is also argued that both the Courts below, having appreciated the evidence in right perspective, disbelieved the receipt said to have been executed by the original landlady and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of both the Courts below. 10. The points that arise for consideration in this revision are (1) whether the first respondent was dispossessed during pendency of these proceedings; and (2) whether he had committed willful default in payment of rents and is liable to be evicted. 11. The specific case of the first respondent / tenant is that the petitioner’s legal heirs got a false complaint filed against him and others and got him and another person arrested on false charges and that they were remanded to custody and that while they were in custody, the Legal Representatives of the original landlady i.e. respondents 2 to 7 herein forcibly dispossessed him pending proceedings in this case. It is also his case that one Dasarath, who was in possession of adjacent portion, was also similarly booked in a criminal case and was dispossessed. 12. One of the Legal Representatives of the original landlady (second respondent herein) filed counter and denied the allegations made by the first respondent. It is submitted that the said Dasarath, who was in occupation of the adjacent portion, vacated the premises on 25.03.2010 and handed over the vacant position to the seventh respondent herein through bailiff in pursuance of the orders passed in E.P.No.2 of 2010 in R.C.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. 13. As seen from the material papers filed by the first respondent, he did not specifically mention the date and time as to when he was dispossessed by respondents 2 to 7 herein. As far as the case of the Dasarath – the adjacent owner is concerned, it appears that he was dispossessed through the process of the Court. The contents of FIR No.77 of 2010 on the file of Police Station, Chilkalguda, reveal that one P.Jayalakshmi filed complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad alleging that the first respondent herein and others created some fake documents and grabbed her property and the said complaint was referred to the police and the police registered above said crime for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 384, 506 IPC and issued FIR. There is nothing on record to say that the legal heirs of the original landlady have any connection with the said P.Vijayalakshmi or that the said criminal case was registered against the first respondent at their instance. Thus, in the absence of any specific date and time of dispossession of the petitioner herein, his version cannot be accepted. 14. Coming to the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, the issue is whether Ex.R.1 – receipt dated 22.07.2003 said to have been issued by the original landlady is genuine or not. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he paid Rs.74,000/- to the petitioner and the same has been acknowledged by the original landlady under Ex.R.1. It is also his case that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.34,000/- is to be considered as advance rental amount and the remaining Rs.40,000/- is to be considered as advance sale consideration in respect of the petition schedule premises. Thus the specific case of the petitioner herein is that an amount of Rs.34,000/- has to be adjusted towards rents from April, 2003 to November, 2005. The specific case of the original landlady is that she has not received any amount from the petitioner herein and Ex.R1 is a fabricated document. 15. Ex.P.1 is the C.C. of plaint in O.S.No.567 of 2005, Ex.P.2 is the C.C. of written statement in O.S.567 of 2005, Ex.P.3 is the C.C. of petition in I.A.No.919 of 2006 in O.S.No.567 of 2005 and Ex.P.4 is the complaint copy dated 02.07.2004 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. It is clear that Ex.P.2 – written statement in O.S.No.567 of 2005 bears the signature of the petitioner. When R.W.1 was examined, he has categorically admitted that the signature of the petitioner in Ex.P.2 and the signature in Ex.R.1 i.e. the disputed signature of the petitioner are different and not similar. He has also admitted that the signatures of the petitioner in the present eviction petition and in Ex.P.2 are similar to one another. Thus, the admission of R.W.1 categorically shows that the admitted signatures of the petitioner available in record are not tallying with the disputed signature of the petitioner in Ex.R.1. It appears that Ex.P.4 is complaint made by the petitioner alleging that she was being threatened. A reading of Ex.R.1 also shows that one J.Ramulu paid Rs.74,000/- towards rent in the form of advance to the petitioner and that the monthly rent is fixed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.34,000/- has to be treated as advance rental amount and the remaining Rs.40,000/- as sale consideration in respect of petition schedule premises at Government rates. It has to be seen that R.W.1 himself admitted that the market value of the petition schedule premises is at Rs.20,000/- per square yard. When the market value is about Rs.20,000/- per square yard, no prudent man would sell the petition schedule premises for Rs.40,000/-. J.Ramulu who is said to be one of the parties to Ex.R.1 has not signed on Ex.R.1. The recitals of Ex.R.1 appear to be self-contradictory. Therefore, it is clear that both the Courts below, having appreciated the evidence, rightly disbelieved Ex.R.1. Once Ex.R.1 is disbelieved, it is clear that the petitioner herein has committed willful default in payment of rents from April 2003 to November 2005, and once the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent, the subject matter of this revision fails. Hence, I am of the view that the judgments of both the Courts below does not suffer from any infirmities so as to warrant interference of this Court. 16. Now coming to the aspect whether respondents 2 to 7 herein are the Legal Representatives of the original landlady, they have filed copy of the order in O.P.No.42 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad to show that they have filed an application for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the said O.P. has been allowed as prayed for by order dated 01.02.2010. Moreover, the first respondent himself, during pendency of the appeal, has made respondents 2 to 7 herein as parties to R.A.No.267 of 2007. 17. In the above circumstances, I do not see any valid and legal grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 30th October 2010, and handover the vacant possession to respondents 2 to 7 herein. The petitioner herein is further directed to pay rents up to 30th October 2010 to respondents 2 to 7 herein on or before 31st July, 2010. No order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR July 06, 2010 Bvv