IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 75 OF 2008 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 271 of 2008 (COMMON ORDER) Between: Seth Ghansiram Gopikishan Badruka Educational Society at Station Road Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Represented by its Secretary, Sri Hariprasad Badruka s/o Late Gopikishan Baduka, aged 80 years R/o. 15-9-496, Mahaboob gunj Hyderabad. … Petitioner-Landlord V/s. N.Sridhar Reddy & 2-Ors. … Respondents-Tenants Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Smt. C.Jayasree Sarathy Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared The Court made the following Common Order (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 75 OF 2008 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 271 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : CRP.No. 75 of 2008 and CRP.No. 271 of 2008 are filed by the Revision Petitioner-landlord against the common order dated 06- 1-2006 passed in RA.No.64 of 2003 and RA.No. 63 of 2003 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing both the appeals and confirming the common order dated 27-12-2002 passed in RC.No.249 and 250 of 2001 by the learned III-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder RC.No. 249 of 2001 and RC.No. 250 of 2001 filed by the landlord under section 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (v), 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (2) (i) (ii) (a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants were dismissed. 2. Heard Smt.C. Jayasree Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner-landlord. None appeared for the respondents. 3. Seth Ghansiram Gopikishan Badruka Educational Society at Station Road Kachiguda, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary is the Revision Petitioner. 4. The Revision Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of the petition-schedule premises bearing Nos. 3-2- 848/5 and 3-2-848/6 situated at Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad which are the subject matters of RC.No.249 and 250 of 2001 on the file of the Court of III-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The Revision Petitioner filed the above Rent Control Cases seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants mainly on the ground of committing wilful default in payment of rents and sub-letting the mulgi which is the subject matter of CRP.No.75 of 2008 and also on the ground of tenants ceased to occupy the petition-schedule mulgi relating to CRP.No. 271 of 2008 for a period of four months. 5. The tenants opposed the eviction cases filed under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity ‘the Act’) on the ground that the property was originally leased out to late Buchi Reddy, who is no other than the father of the respondents but without disclosing the said fact, the Revision Petitioner filed OS.No. 5129 of 1990 on the file of the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for ejectment of the original tenant Sri Buchi Reddy and after his death against the present respondents on several grounds and also claimed mesne profits for use and occupation of the petition-schedule premises keeping the tenancy of both mulgis as single but ultimately the suit was dismissed on 12-10-1999. Thus, according to the tenants, it is not open for the landlord to contend subsequently that the respondents committed any default muchless wilful default in payment of rents since the respondents and their father Sri Buchi Reddy were not at all treated by the Revision Petitioner as tenants till the filing of the above R.C.C.s under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 6. It is also their contention that the Revision Petitioner- Landlord received an amount ofRs.4,000/- as deposit @ Rs.2,000/- per each mulgi which is in contravention of Section 7 of the Act. Further their case is that the Revision Petitioner received an advance of five months rent for both the mulgis @ Rs.3,500/- for each mulgi and thus the total amount of Rs.11,000/- deposited by the respondents was lying with the landlord on the date of filing of the eviction petition. Therefore, receiving the deposits as well as advance mentioned above, according to the respondents are in contravention of Section 7 of the Act. II. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Landlord relied upon a decision in PHOOL CHAND AND ANR. V/s. GIRRAJ PRASAD[1] and another decision in MODERN HOTEL, GUDUR, represented by M.N. Narayanan V/s. K. RADHA KRISHNAIAH AND ORS [2] in support of her contention. But the ratio laid down therein does not enhance the case of the Revision Petitioner since the facts of the instant case are entirely different. 7. It is further contended that they had sent DD.No. 4345900 dated 20-02-2001 for an amount of Rs.23,800/- drawn from the Bank of Maharashtra towards rent of 17 months i.e., from 25-09-1999 to 25-1-2001 and thereafter four cheques @ Rs.700/- each and therefore actually no amount was due from them to the landlord, and therefore, the landlord cannot seek their eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. 8. They also flatly denied sub-letting of one of the premises to third party and the other allegation that they ceased to occupy the other premises, which are additional grounds for the Revision Petitioner-landlord for eviction of the respondents-tenants. It requires to be noticed that most of the facts, which have been asserted by the tenants, were either admitted or established. The Rent Controller on careful analysis of the evidence adduced by both the parties in the light of their pleadings held that none of the grounds urged by the Revision Petitioner-Landlord was proved and consequently dismissed both the eviction petitions. 9. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record by his common judgment confirmed the orders passed by the III- Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and dismissed the appeals filed by the landlord. 10. The reasons assigned by the courts below in support of their findings that the Revision Petitioner not considering the status of the father of respondents, Sri Buchi Reddy as tenant filed suit for ejectment, as if he was an unauthorized occupant of the premises, OS.No. 5129 of 1990 was filed by the landlord on the said ground was ultimately dismissed by the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the landlord filed RCCs under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 stating that the respondents are the tenants of the petition-schedule premises and they are liable for eviction on the grounds afore-stated are cogent and convincing. Therefore, it is rightly contended by the tenants that having regard to the circumstances in which the Revision Petitioner filed earlier suit and subsequent filing of RCCs, it is no longer open for the landlord to contend that the respondents committed any wilful default in payment of rent more particularly in view of the fact that the Revision Petitioner-landlord never admitted the respondents to be tenants of the petition-schedule premises till the dismissal of OS.No. 5129 of 1990 and filing of the subsequent RCCs. Therefore, for the first time, while filing RCCs the landlord disclosed jural relationship between the institution and the respsondents. 11. The learned Courts below have rightly accepted the contention of the tenants that in view of the stand taken by the landlord while filing the earlier suit without disclosing jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot seek eviction on the ground of committing wilful default in payment of rent and more particularly when subsequent to the filing of RCCs respondents had paid rents which is indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. Absolutely except the oral testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, there is no other material to show that the premises was sublet to third party. On the other hand, the tenants could be able to prove that they have been running their own business in the petition-schedule mentioned property. Similarly, except adducing oral evidence to the effect that the premises relating to CRP.No. 271 of 2008 was kept under lock and key, no specific evidence was let in to prove that the tenants ceased to keep the said premises for a period of four months. Both the courts below rightly disbelieved the version of the Revision Petitioner on these aspects. This Court while exercising the powers under section 22 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 can only interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, if they are perverse or contrary to the evidence on record or if they are based on no evidence. Even if there is some scope to take a different view, this Court is not supposed to disturb the concurrent findings while exercising jurisdiction under section 22 of the AP (Buildings, Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960. Further in this case, there is no possibility for taking a different view than the one which was taken by both the courts below. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in these Civil Revision Petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 14-03-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 75 AND 271 of 2008 CIRCULATION No. Date:14-03-2011 COURT MASTER: I s L COMPUTER No. 43 [1]) AIR 1997 RAJASTHAN 38 [2] ) AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT -1510