THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2940 OF 2006 Date of Judgment: 9.8.2011 Between: M.R. Ambareeshachary @ Amareshachary …Petitioner and S. Shantha Devi ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2940 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner/landlord filed RC No. 76 of 1998 before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, mala fide denial of title by the tenant as well as on the ground of tenant ceasing to occupy the schedule premises and securing alternate accommodation. On consideration of the pleadings of both sides and oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Rent Controller, while negativing the eviction on the ground of personal requirement, granted eviction of the respondent on the ground of malafide denial of title of landlord and that she ceased to occupy the schedule premises and in fact she secured alternate accommodation. The respondent preferred an appeal, but there was delay in presentation of the appeal and in the meanwhile before the delay could be condoned and the lower appellate court could entertain the appeal, the petitioner executed the eviction order on 3.6.2002 and since then the petitioner is in possession of the schedule premises. The appeal of the respondent was, however, later entertained by the lower appellate court and was allowed on the ground that denial of title by the tenant is bona fide and consequently it was held that the Rent Controller ought to have referred the dispute of title to competent civil court for adjudication. In that view of the matter, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside holding that the tenant shall be entitled to restitution of the possession as she was dispossessed in pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller pending the appeal. Questioning the said appellate Court’s order, this revision is preferred by the petitioner/landlord. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the appellate court itself is unsustainable, inasmuch as the eviction was not ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of denial of title being mala fide. The learned counsel points out that what all is pleaded by the respondent/tenant was that the petitioner was not the owner, but is only a care taker. Secondly it was also pointed out that the respondent has vacated the schedule premises and is not residing therein and in fact, the respondent has purchased another flat in an apartment which is sought to be established by producing the invitation of house warming ceremony coupled with the admission of the respondent in cross-examination that she has taken another premises bearing No. 3-3-806 in the same locality about 11 years before the eviction proceedings. Thus the tenant secured alternate accommodation was held established. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant, on the other hand, submits that the order of the eviction passed by the Rent Controller was also on the ground that the tenant is not a bona fide in denying the title of the landlord and a specific finding with respect to that was recorded in para-21 of the order of the Rent Controller. He also submits that the lower appellate court rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondent/tenant never disputed that the petitioner is not the landlord within the definition under Section 2 (vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and therefore denial of title being not mala fide, automatically the civil court’s jurisdiction gets attracted. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, accepts that the respondent/tenant is out of the scheduled premises since 3.6.2002, the date of eviction and in view of the fact that for the last several years the landlord is in possession of the scheduled premises and the respondent/tenant is residing in her own alternate premises, I am of the opinion that the order of the lower appellate court setting aside the entire order of the Rent Controller even on the ground of tenant securing alternate accommodation is not justified, inasmuch as the lower appellate court ought to have dealt with all the grounds on which the Rent Controller has ordered eviction. However, the lower appellate court proceeds to state that it need not go into other grounds of eviction in view of the denial of title is found to be bona fide. On account of the said error committed by the lower appellate court, there is no adjudication by the lower appellate court with regard to the ground of eviction viz., the tenant securing alternate accommodation. I find from the record that the admission of the respondent/tenant that she has secured another premises as well as flat at Janapriya apartments at Saroornagar is sufficient to sustain the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the appellate court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/tenant has deposited every months’ rent promptly from the date of dispossession also i.e., 3.6.2002 onwards in support of her plea that she is entitled to restitution of the scheduled premises. However, in view of the findings reached above that the order of eviction is sustainable, obviously the petitioner/landlord who is already enjoying the possession, is not entitled to the rents for the periods subsequent to 3.6.2002. Therefore, if any amounts are deposited by the respondent towards rent for the period from 3.6.2002 onwards to the credit of RC No. 76 of 1998, the respondent/tenant shall be entitled to withdraw the same. However, the petitioner/landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the rents, if any, lying in deposit for the period prior to 3.6.2002 only. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 09.08.2011 KR