JAMSHEED HUSSAIN Vs. AZEEZ HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant questioning the orders dated 21-9-1994 passed in RANo.263 of 1990 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by which the rent appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the orders of eviction passed against him in RC No.327 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The first respondent is the original landlord and the Respondents 2 to 6 herein were added as his legal representatives after his death during the pendency of the proceedings. The original landlord, who is the deceased first respondent herein, filed eviction petition in RC No.327/85 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the present revision petitioner who is the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from August 1983 to August 1985 (for total period of 25 months) and also on the ground thai the tenant is liable for eviction for having kept the premises which is non-residential building vacant for three years. The Rent Controller rejected the second ground. He, however, held that there was wilful default in payment of rents for the above said period and as such the orders of eviction were passed against him on 29-6-1990. Questioning the said orders the tenant filed RA No.263 of 1990 against the Respondents 2 to 6 herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased original landlord who died in the meanwhile. The lower appellate Court confirmed the orders of eviction on the ground of wilful default by the impugned orders dated 21-9-1994 thereby dismissing the rent appeal. Questioning the said orders the tenant filed revision petition. Along with the revision petition he also filed CMP No.20568 of 1994 seeking permission to file two documents by way of additional evidence on his behalf contending that the original landlord had sold away the demised building to some third parties on 13-11-1989 under registered sale deed executed by him even before the eviction orders were passed by the Rent Controller on 29-6-1990 and that in view of such sale the eviction proceedings cannot be continued against him, that the said registered sale deed and the encumbrance certificate which are filed along with CMP No.20568 of 1994 are necessary and material documents to be considered for the disposal of the present revision petition and that therefore the said petition may be allowed. The learned Counsel for the respondents, has, however, fried to contend that the orders of the appellate Court confirming the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller are quite valid and legal and such concurrent finding cannot be interfered in the present revision and that the fresh documents by way of additional evidence cannot be entertained in the revision proceedings and that therefore the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous petition may be dismissed.

(3.) Heard both the Counsel.