M NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. P SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment dated 03.12.2007 in R.A. No. 259 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Chief Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the eviction order dated 22.10.2005 in R.C. No. 271 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Facts, which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition, are as under:

(2.) The revision petitioner-landlord filed eviction petition in R.C. No. 271 of 2003 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction of the respondent herein-tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The case of the revision petitioner-landlord is that originally the petition schedule house was allotted to A.P. Housing Board in the name of N. Mahanand and the respondent herein was tenant having obtained the same from Mahanand on rent under the oral tenancy. The respondent herein withheld the rents and filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 1710 of 1993 against the said Mahanand and the said suit was dismissed. The respondent herein admitted the title of the said Mahanand in the said suit. The said A.P. Housing Board has not executed sale deed in the name of Mahanand and as such, he has not taken any steps for eviction of the respondent-tenant though he withheld the rents and he got the sale deed in the year 2002 i.e., on 24.08.2002. Thereafter, he executed a registered gift deed in the name of the revision petitioner on 13.05.2003 and as such the revision petitioner became the owner of the schedule property and entitled to receive the rents from the date of gift. After he became the owner of the schedule property by virtue of the gift, the revision petitioner approached the respondent herein-tenant and informed him about the said gift and requested to pay rents to him, but he did not pay rents from May, 2003 onwards @Rs. 900/- per month. The revision petitioner got issued notice and in spite of that, the respondent-tenant failed to pay the rents by denying the title of the revision petitioner by giving a reply dated 16.06.2003. Since the respondent-tenant failed to pay rent and denied the title of the revision petitioner, eviction petition was filed.

(3.) The respondent herein-tenant filed counter stating that he is carrying on business in the schedule premises. It is also stated that the revision petitioner and his father Bansilal and his uncle have hatched a conspiracy to defeat the legitimate rights of the respondent-tenant. The respondent-tenant stated that he has taken schedule house on rent from the father of the revision petitioner and he used to pay the rents. In the year 1990 i.e., on 01.07.1990, father of the revision petitioner informed him that in the family partition, the schedule house was allotted to him and another house was allotted to Mahanand, the paternal uncle of the revision petitioner. Thereafter, the father of the revision petitioner and his brother Mahanand came to the respondent-tenant and offered to sell the schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 82,500/- and believing the offer made by the father of the revision petitioner and his brother, he accepted the said offer and accordingly an oral agreement of sale was entered on 10.07.1990 and out of the total amount, he paid Rs. 12,000/- to them as part of sale consideration and it is agreed that the respondent-tenant shall pay the balance amount at the time of the registration by the A.P. Housing Board. By that date, i.e., 10.07.1990, the respondent-tenant was in possession of the schedule property and the father of the revision petitioner and his brother handed over the symbolic possession to the respondent-tenant. As such, he stopped paying rent to them. As per the agreement, he paid Rs. 6,300/- as part of sale consideration to the A.P. Housing Board and paid Rs. 32,600/- to the father of the revision petitioner on two different occasions. Only the balance of Rs. 31,600/- has to be paid by the respondent-tenant at the time of execution of the sale deed in his name. Since the date of the agreement of sale, he has been in possession as an agreement holder and not as a tenant and also paid the property tax upto date. The original challans were submitted to the A.P. Housing Board. The father of the revision petitioner also passed receipts for the payments made by him. In the year 1990, the schedule property was adjacent to graveyard and there was no commercial value and the property would not fetch more than Rs. 60,000/- by that date. It is also stated that the respondent-tenant spent huge amount for conducting repairs and constructing more structures. It is also stated that he filed O.S. No. 1710 of 1993 for injunction against the father of the revision petitioner and his brother, which was dismissed on technical grounds. It is also the case of the respondent-tenant that he requested the father of the revision petitioner to execute a registered sale deed in his favour but they avoided to do the same on one pretext or the other. The respondent-tenant is even now ready to execute his part performance of agreement of sale dated 10.07.1990. It is also stated that the respondent has filed a suit O.S. No. 440 of 2004 for specific performance of the agreement of sale and the same is pending.