G. Suvarna Jyothi v. Sri Khaja Moeeduddin

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.4999 of 2017 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1964, as amended from time to time, is directed against the order, dated 13.07.2017, of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, passed in R.A.No.262 of 2014. 1.1 By the aforesaid orders, the learned Chief Judge, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the order, dated 24.10.2014, of the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, passed in R.C.No.345 of 2013, whereby the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the revision petitioner/ tenant from the petition schedule property by granting a time of two months for vacating the property. 2.

I have heard the submissions of Sri M.A.Basith, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ tenant, and of Sri Mohd. Shujauddin, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord. I have perused the material record. 3.

The jural relationship is admitted. The Courts below by concurrent findings recorded in the respective orders held that the petitioner/ tenant committed wilful defaults in payment of rents, and that, therefore, she is liable to be evicted from the schedule property and accordingly, ordered her eviction. In this revision, except challenging the said orders on questions of fact, no question of law is raised. A plain perusal of the concurrent findings of the Courts below would make it manifest that the Courts below having considered the facts correctly and the evidence in proper perspective recorded well-reasoned findings, which do not warrant interference in this revision. Considering the scope of the revision, which is limited and as there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the orders of the Courts below calling for

MSRM, J C.R.P.No.4999 of 2017 interference, this Court is of the considered view that the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4.

Before parting, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought six months time for the petitioner/ tenant vacating and handing over vacant peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent/ landlord. He also has undertaken to file an affidavit of the petitioner before the Registry of this Court undertaking to vacate the property within six months from today without seeking any further extension of time. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord stated that a time of three or four months would be reasonable, this Court is of the considered view that considering the nature for which the property is being put to use, a time of six months would meet the ends of justice. 5.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. However, the petitioner/ tenant is granted a time of six months from today for vacating the schedule property and handing over vacant peaceful possession of the same to the respondent/ landlord. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall file an affidavit as undertaken and as aforesaid. On failure of the petitioner to vacate the property within the time granted, the respondent/ landlord shall be at liberty to obtain vacant peaceful possession by following the procedure established by law. The respondent/ landlord is permitted to withdraw the rents that are deposited by the petitioner/ tenant to the credit of the proceedings before the Court below, by following the procedure established by law, however, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

MSRM, J C.R.P.No.4999 of 2017 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 27th October, 2017 RAR