SYED HIDAYAT MOHIUDDIN KHAN Vs. JAMAL BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 8/2/2000 in A.S. No.62 of 1995 on the file of the III Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings cum VIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed O.S No.1416 of 1989 for recovery of possession and consequential injunction, arrears of rents and for future mesne profits @ Rs.500.00 per month. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property bearing No.16/5/481/1 was situated in the graveyard of Dargah Hazrath Maroof Ali Shah, Osmanpura, Hyderabad and the defendant No.1 was tenant of a portion of the said premises admeasuring 50 Sq. Yds., covered with a tin shed. The GPA of plaintiff No.1 executed a rental deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 15/4/1959 for running a firewood stall in the graveyard on a monthly rent of Rs.10.00, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.25.00 per month. Syed Muzafaruddin Khan was the Muthawali of the Dargah. The GPA holder of Syed Muzafaruddin Khan was Mr. Khaleelullah Quraishi. Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan died in USA in May, 1988. The defendant No.1 paid rents to Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan till March 1985 and thereafter stopped paying rents. The defendant No.1 was due arrears of rent from April, 1985 to November 1988 aggregating to Rs.11,110.00 @ Rs.25.00 per month. But, the plaintiffs limited the case for arrears of rents for three years from April 1985 to March, 1988. The plaintiff No.1-Syed Gulam Dastagir Khan was the brother of Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan. Plaintiff No.1 issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act (for short 'TP Act') to vacate the premises and to hand-over the vacant possession of the property. The defendant No.1 acknowledged receipt of notice, but failed to give any reply. The defendant No.1 unauthorizedly opened three doors towards main road on the eastern side and unlawfully inducted his son-in-law into the said premises. The defendant No.1 was also using a portion of the graveyard as a cycle and auto rickshaw stand. The committee of Mosque protested for committing all these illegal acts by defendant No.1. A religious school was also functioning in the Mosque and the said accommodation was insufficient. As the defendant No.1 committed default in paying the rents and was also involved in the acts of damaging the sanctity of the Mosque, the plaintiff No.1 filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from tying the buffaloes, keeping rickshaws in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further claimed arrears of rents and future mesne profits.