MUMTAZ ALI KHAN Vs. RUPENDER PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three C.R.Ps are connected. The Petitioner in CRP.No. 2643/91 & 1732/89 is the tenant which relates to the same premises viz. Mulgi No. 5-4-171 situate at Murlidhar Bagh, Hyderabad, and the respondent therein is the landlord. C.R.P.No. 1798/89 relates to the premises bearing No. 5-4-176 situate atMuralidhar Bagh, Hyderabad, the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord.

(2.) The facts in C.R.P.No. 1732/89 and 1798/89 are similar. I shall first refer to the facts in these two cases. The premises which are the subject-matter of these two petitions are non-residential premises. They were originally owned by one Raja Kanyaka Prasad. On his death his heirs divided the properties; consequently the premises which is the subject- matter of C.R.P.No. 1732 / 89 fell to the share of the respondent therein and the premises which is the subject- matter of C.R.P.No. 1798/89 fell to the share of the respondent in that C.R.P. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as 'owner' and 'tenant.

(3.) The owner filed eviction petitions against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for a period of ten months from October, 1974 to August, 1975. The tenants denied that there was any wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the tenants amended the counter raising the plea that the suit mulgi is an endowed property, hence the Court of the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition, as such the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. On the ground that the said plea amounts to denial of title of the owners, the owner also amended the eviction petitions, with leave of the Court and added the ground of denial of title for eviction of the tenants. The parries went on trial. After considering the evidence on record, on 1-11-1984 the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition holding in favour of the owner on both the grounds. The tenants preferred appeals before the appellate authority, Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. On 28- 6-1991, the appellate authority reversed the finding of wilful default, but confirmed the finding that denial of title of the landlord was not bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction by allowing the appeals. Against the said orders of eviction the petitioners filed CR.P.Nos. 1732/89 and 1798/89.