AMTUL QUAY YUM HUMSIRA Vs. MUNAWAR FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in E.A. No. 37/2000 in E.P.No. 19/2000 in R.C. No. 638/95 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows:- The respondent in the present Revision filed E.A.No.37/2000 in EP.No. 19/2000 in R.C.No. 638/95 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 47 C.P.C. r/w Rule 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 and Section 15 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and Section 151 C.P.C. for restoration of possession of the demised premises No. 22-6-1984, Pattargatti, Hyderabad. The respondent in the present Revision Petition is also respondent in the main R.C. No. 638/95 and the Judgment-debtor in E.P.No. 19/2000 and the Revision Petitioner-landlady filed R.C.NO. 638/95 against him (sic. her) and it was allowed on 22-4-1998 and subsequent thereto the respondent-tenant preferred rent appeal in R.A. 202/98 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judge, Hyderabad Against the orders passed in R.C.No. 638/95 and after passing of eviction order both parties had entered into a fresh rental agreement on 21-7-1998 which was duly registered and as per the registered lease deed it was executed for a period of five years commencing from 1-7-1998 and it was also agreed that the same may be renewed further on mutual consent of both the parties and the rent is Rs. 800/- per month and as per the terms of the fresh rental agreement there is a specific undertaking mat the eviction order will not be executed and thus the fresh rental agreement had been acted upon and as per the understanding the Revision Petitioner shall withdraw the eviction case and in view of the aforesaid facts, the respondent herein did not prosecute R.A.No. 202/98 which was dismissed on 31-12-1999. It was also stated that on 8-8-1998, the Revision petitioner filed a memo through her Counsel in R.C.No. 638/95 intimating that she had undertaken not to initiate any E.P. proceedings in view of the fresh rental agreement. Further it was stated that the Revision petitioner not only collected the rents at the enhanced rates, but she had also received Rs. 2,00,000.00 from the respondent by way of cheques and subsequent thereto, the Revision petitioner had engaged another Counsel and by playing fraud upon the Court, had proceeded with the execution and had dispossessed the respondent from the schedule property on 6-4-2000 through the Court bailiff. In the light of the said facts, since fraud had been played, the entire proceedings are vitiated by fraud and hence the respondent filed the application specified above seeking the relief of restoration of possession of the schedule premises. The respondent (sic. petitioner) filed a counter admitting certain aspects. But it was stated that on a wrong advice of the Counsel she had executed the document and after receipt of summons in the E.A. proceedings she came to know about the fraud played on her and thereafter she had cancelled the prior document on 14-8-2000 and it was further stated that the prior document was not acted upon and the document was obtained under undue influence by taking advantage of the innocence of the Revision petitioner. It was also stated that on the date of the document, R.A. No 202/98 was very much pending and inasmuch as the appellate Court had not recorded the alleged compromise the case put-forth by the respondent-tenant cannot be believed. Several other aspects also have been pleaded narrating the details to the effect that the payments were made not in the present context as contended by the respondent-tenant.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that no oral evidence was let in by the parties and the documents were marked by consent i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-23, Ex.R-1 and Ex.C-1.