SYED AHMED MOHIUDDIN Vs. WILFRED DESOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 13-5-2003 in R.A. No. 217 of 2002, by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application setting aside the order dated 2-5-2002 passed in I.A No. 197 of 1995 in R.C.No.604 of 1993 by the learned II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, leaving it open for the respondent herein to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his tenancy rights, the proposed party said to be nephew of the deceased tenant filed this revision petition.

(2.) Few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner herein is the nephew of the deceased tenant, late Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin, who died on 26-11-1995 leaving behind the petitioner as his successor. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assisting the deceased in his business being run in the mulgi and after his death, he is running the business in the said mulgi and, therefore, he being in possession of the mulgi, sought to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the eviction petition. The case of the respondent-Landlord is that the averment that the petitioner was his hereditary successor or that he performed his late rites is false. The possession of the petitioner along with late Ahmed Mohiuddin and his assisting him in the business is also denied, but immediately after death of Mohiuddin, the petitioner forcibly occupied the mulgi and, as such, he is not entitled to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the eviction petition.

(3.) The Trial Court in deciding the point whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded as second respondent in the main eviction petition in RC No. 604 of 1993 has adverted to the evidence of P.W.1 the petitioner herein and R.W.1, landlord. Dwelling upon the admission of the landlord that the deceased tenant, is maternal uncle of P.W.1 and other documents Exs. P-5 and 6 (fatwa, in urdu) and Ex.P-23 wedding card showing the relationship of the petitioner as nephew of the deceased tenant and his further admission that after the death of the decesed tenant, he saw the petitioner carrying on business in the petition schedul property, the trial court held that the petitioner herein is in possession of the petition schedule premises. It is further observed that since the petitioner was in possession of Exs.P-25 and 26 demand notices and Exs.P-27 to 30 Central Sales Tax 'C' Forms, held that after the death of the deceased-tenant, the petitioner was in possession and running the business and as such, held that the petitioner can be treated as legal representative of the deceased tenant and thus allowed the petition permitting him to be impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the RC.