JAMIA NIZAMIA Vs. M.A.SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 26/2/2016 in RA.No.84 of 2014 and RA.No.85 of 2014 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, where under, the appeals preferred by the respondent/tenant against the judgment in RC.No.21 of 2004 and RC.No.435 of 2008 were allowed, thereby, their two Rent Control Cases were dismissed, the petitioner/landlord in the above referred Rent Control cases and the respondent in both the appeals has filed these two Civil Revision Petitions under Sec. 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, which is now 'The Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960) herein after will be referred as 'Act 15 of 1960', with a prayer to set aside the above referred judgments in both the appeals and direct the respondent/appellant to vacate and hand over the petition schedule property to the petitioner. Since the appeals were filed on similar grounds and present Civil Revision Petitions were also filed on similar grounds and as the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent have advanced common arguments in both the revision petitions, common judgment would suffice for the disposal of these two revision petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision petition will be referred to as landlord and tenant. The present Revision Petitions were filed by the landlord.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds on which the landlord sought to question the impugned judgment in RA.No.84 of 2014 and RA.No.85 of 2014, it is just necessary to give a brief note of the original Rent Control cases that were filed by the landlord.

(3.) As per the contentions raised by the landlord and even as per the admitted case of tenant, property bearing No. 5/9/321/3 at Gun Foundry, Hyderabad belongs to the landlord/petitioner and the same was let out to the respondent/tenant on lease for a period of 29 years. While filing RC.No.21 of 2004, the landlord has claimed that the term of lease was expired and the tenant continued to stay in the building. It appears that the tenant has filed one Rent Control case vide RC.No.151 of 2002 seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Bank Account or in the Court on the ground that the landlord refused to receive the rent and though he tried to send the rent amount by way of Money Order, the same as rejected and there was no proper response from the landlord to his request, where under, he sought the details of his Bank Account, so that he can deposit the rent.