DELIGHT ELECTRICAL WORKS HYDRABAD Vs. NEW DECAN HALLHYDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlords in both the Courts below filed the present C.R.P., under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'the Act', for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) The landlords filed R.C.C.No.108 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller for eviction on the following grounds :

(3.) Bona fide personal requirement of the landlords since the partnership firm does not own any other non- residential premises in the twin cities. The learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad after framing points for consideration at para-8, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, R.Ws.l to 3, marked Exs.Al to A53, Ex.B.l to B.45 and Exs.Xl to X.21 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondents herein, the tenant had not committed any wilful default and the landlords are not entitled to the relief of eviction on the ground of even bona fide personal requirement. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24-2-2002, the landlords carried the matter by way of appeal R.A.No.185 of 2002 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the appellate authority having framed the point for consideration at para-6 after recording certain reasons confirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords had preferred the present C.R.P., under Section 22 of the Act. Contentions of Sri Vilas Afzalpurkar : 3. Sri Vilas Afzalpurkar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners- landlords made the following submissions : The learned Counsel pointed out that the ground of wilful default is of two parts, one relating to wilful default in payment of rent for the period of February 1997 to April 1997 and the other wilful default in payment of municipal taxes. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record in general and the evidence of P.W.I and R.W.I in particular and had pointed out to the stand taken by R.W.1- the tenant and would comment that in the light of the nature of documents produced and several of the suspicious circumstances as clearly reflected from the said documents, the stand of the tenant cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that certain documents were left untouched and certain documents were commented upon, but an erroneous or wrong approach had been adopted and this would amount to the recording of a perverted finding by the Court of first instance, which had been just confirmed without any serious discussion by the appellate authority by framing one sentence as point for consideration. The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that the rent control proceedings are summary proceedings, but even then the appellate authority being the final Court of fact is expected to appreciate all the facts and record appropriate findings and the findings recorded by the Rent Controller cannot be confirmed in a routine way without independent application of mind. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant part in the decision of the appellate authority at Para-13 and would contend that except some stray observations, the ground of bona fide personal requirement in fact had not been discussed at all and the ground of telephone connection had been commented upon which is, in fact, an irrelevant ground. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Exs.B.27 to B.29 and B.45 and would comment that these documents are not corresponding documents and the nexus had not been established and the cheque numbers specified in Ex.B.45 also do not tally and such irrelevant documents had been produced. The learned Counsel also had shown certain tampering and would comment that on such suspicious documents, believing the stand of the tenant is highly unjustified. The learned Counsel also pointed out the vagueness as can be reflected in Exs.B.8, B.9 and B.15 which were produced by the tenant to substantiate the contention that he had not committed wilful default in payment of rents. The learned Counsel had pointed out that the name of the payee was not mentioned and the period was also not mentioned and despite the same recording a finding that the tenant had not committed wilful default for the relevant period also cannot be sustained. While further elaborating his submissions the learned Counsel pointed out to the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.I and would comment that even in the chief examination R.W.1 made several admissions inclusive of his liability to pay the property taxes to the Municipal Corporation. The learned Senior Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.A48 the Rental Deed entered into between the parties and condition No.3 which specified the payment of property taxes as well by the tenant. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the portions of the Crossexaminations of R.W.1 and had pointed out that these admissions made by R.W.1 would clearly go to show that the stand taken by the tenant in relation to any of the grounds cannot be sustained. While further commenting on the aspect of bona fide personal requirement, the learned Counsel would submit that apart from the evidence of P.W.I, the evidence of P.W.2 also is available and the findings recorded that positive proof had not been placed relating to certain aspects by the landlords may not be sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even if it is to be taken as the bona fide personal requirement of a partnership firm as such, the mere fact that certain of the partners may be having some premises may not alter the situation in any way. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Venkayala Veeraraghavulu v. M/s. Godavari Metral Rolling Mills Contractors Firm, 1995 (1) ALD 794 = 1995 (2) ALT 227, in this regard. While commenting about the order which had been impugned in the C.R.P., the learned Counsel would comment that the important portions of the oral evidence had been left untouched by the appellate authority and equally important documents had been left untouched and in routine way framing cryptic point for consideration certain findings were recorded and ultimately the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller had been confirmed. This would definitely go to show that there is no proper application of mind on the part of the appellate authority while deciding the matter. While concluding, the learned Senior Counsel would maintain that there is no hard and fast rule that merely perversed concurrent findings had been recorded no interference is called for before the revisional Court under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Counsel no doubt, would comment that normally in ordinary course when concurrent findings relating to factual aspects had been recorded the revisional Court to be slow in disturbing such findings. But, however when the very approach of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence is totally perversed and there is improper consideration or non consideration of the crucial aspects of both oral and documentary evidence, such findings would definitely amount to preversed findings and such findings definitely can be disturbed by the revisional Court. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his stand in this regard. Contentions of Sri Vedula Venkataramana: