CHOWDHARY SRIKRISHNA Vs. SARDAR HUZUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below negativing the relief of eviction prayed for, on the ground of wilful default in R.C.No.384/96, and on the ground of material alteration impairing the utility of the building in R.C.No.495/98, had preferred the present C.R.Ps., C.R.P.No.5228/2004 and C.R.P.No.5229/2004, as against the order made by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad - Appellate Authority in R.A.No.109/2001 and in R.A.No.443/2000, respectively. It is not in controversy between the parties that the landlord has been filing several rent control cases praying for eviction.

(2.) Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner - landlord in both the C.R.P.s made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court through the conditions specified in Ex.P. 1 - the rental deed and the admissions made by R.W.1 relating to the binding nature of these conditions and would maintain that inasmuch as the rents had been sent to the wrong address that itself will amount to wilful default. The learned Counsel explained in detail the terms and conditions in general in Ex.P.1 and condition Nos.5, 9 and 13 in particular. The learned Counsel also pointed out that there cannot be any doubt or controversy that condition No.5 had been violative though it is binding between the parties. As far as the alterations are concerned, the learned Counsel would contend that condition No.9 specifies that the written consent is essential and in the light of the same, the ground had been proved by the landlord. The learned Counsel placed reliance on several decisions in this regard. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by both the C.R.P.Nos.5228 and 5229 of 2004 (Common Order) (PSN.J) learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to Ex.R.5 and would comment that neither Vasant Rao Kulkarni nor R.A.Krishna, the Advocates, had been examined in relation to Ex.R.5 and hence Ex.R.5 was not proved. Certain submissions are made in relation to certain of the aspects constituting wilful default in the light of the subsequent events. The provisions of Sec.10 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in general, and Sec.10(2)(i) of the said Act, in particular, had been referred to by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel while concluding had pointed out that at any rate the Appellate Authority had not appreciated all the aspects in proper perspective and had drawn the attention of this Court through the relevant findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would contend that these findings may not be sufficient so as to confirm the order made by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Vilas Afzul Purkar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent - tenant in both the C.R.Ps., had pointed out that this is a case where the landlord was not examined, but the father of the landlord - the G.P.A.Holder was examined. The learned Counsel in all fairness would maintain that though he is not convarsing this ground with all seriousness, the fact remains that there is no convincing, acceptable evidence placed on the side of the landlord to prove the ground of wilful default in R.C.No.384/96 and the ground of material alteration impairing utility of the building in R.C.No.495/98. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portion of the findings recorded at para 9 while answering point No.2 by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.No.384/96 and would contend that this reasoning is well justified. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the other findings which had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller in detail by referring to the relevant portion of the evidence also and would comment that the Appellate Authority had confirmed these findings and hence, the same need not be interfered with. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the pleadings in R.C.No.495/98 and the evidence available on record and would contend that just carrying on some carpentry work will not amount to any alteration impairing the utility of the building and hence, it cannot be said that condition No.9 of Ex.P.1 had been in any way violated.