Mohammed Farooq v. Mrs.Safiya Sultana (Safia Sultana)
\\ [ 3401 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2993 OF 2024 Petition under Section 22 of the Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, '1960 aggrreved by the Judgment dated 19-07 -2024 made in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order passed in R.C. No. 98 of 2021 dated 30-0'l2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
Mohammed Farooq, S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, Rio. Mulgi No.19-3-1089itu25111A8, Jahanuma, Madina Colony, Hyderabad ...Revision Petitioner / Respondent / Appellant AND Mrs. Safiya Sultana (Safia Sultana), Wo. Late Khaja Raheemuddin, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 1 9-3- 1 089/A/2511 , Jahanuma, Madina Colony. Hyderabad Rep. by her GPA Holder Gafooruddin S/o. Late Khaja Raheemuddin, R/o. H.No. i9-3-10891N2511 , Jahanuma, Madina Colony, Hyderabad I I I I
...Respondent / Petitioner / Respondent
lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order d|. 30-01-2024 passed in R.C. No. 98 of 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad, by passing Judgment dl. 19-07 -2024 passed in R.C-A. No. 5 of 2024, pending disposal of the main Revision. I
Counsel for the Petitioner :
Sri K Jamali Counsel for the Respondent :
The Court made the following Order :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CML REVISION PETITION No.2993 OF 2o24 ORDER:
This revision filed under Section 22 of tl-e Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, Act of 1960) takes exception to the order dated 19.07.2024 in R.C.A.No.S of 2024 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad (for short, Rent Control Appellate Authority) and order dated 30.01.2024 in R.C.No.98 of 2O2l on the file of the Court of Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, Rent Controller). 2.
Briefly stated, the petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlady of the petition schedule premises. The respondent, a widow, filed R.C.No.98 of 2O2l under Section lO-C, 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(iv) of the Act of 1960 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant from the petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller opined that the grounds under aforesaid sections were made out. Accordingly, the Rent Controller allowed the said case and directed the tenant to
'2 vacate and handover the physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlady. 3.
The said order was called in question in RCA.No.S of 2024, and the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the landlady, being a widow, deserves additiona-l protection under the Act of 1960. In addition, it was found that the son of landlady viz., Khaja Ga-fooruddin is a handicapped person having 9O% disability. The petition schedule premises was required for establishing electronic goods business/ shop for him. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that in view of judgment reported in Radhi Raaey v. Nanki Ferozel, a widow is not required to establish bona fide requirement. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority gave its stamp of approval to the order of the Rent Controller. The present revision assails both the said orders. 4.
Sri K. Jamali, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singuiar contention. By placing hear,ry reliance on the statement of Khaja Gafooruddin (P.W. 1), it is submitted that he in candid terms admitted that out of four shops in the ' AIRONI,INE 20 18 HYD 37
i I petition schedule premises, two shops were let out to other I tenants and in one shop, he is doing 'Kirana' Business. By highlighting this, the singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that since said Khaja Gafooruddin is already running shop in the part of petition schedule premises, there was no need for seeking eviction of present petitioner.
5.
No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6.
The respondent/landlady is a widow and Section 1O-C of the Act of 1960 provided an additional right to recover immediate possession of premises accrued to widow. The Rent Control Appellate Authority in para 22 of the impugned order considered the judgment of Radhi Raney (supra) and opined that in a petition Iiled under Section 1O-C of the Act of 1960, the landlord/landlady is not required to prove bona fide requirement. No amount of argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to distinguish this judgment.
7 .
So far, statement of Khaja Gafooruddin is concerned, both the Courts have considered the said statement and reached to a plausible decision. The alalysis made by both the Courts cannot be said to be either perverse or based on extraneous reasons. The said Khaja Gafooruddin made it clear in the statement that the said shop is being run as toffee shop by his sister.
8.
It is trite that landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes ald he has got complete freed in the matter. The landlord/ landlady is best suited to decide as to which part of the petition schedule premises is to be used for which purpose. This aspect is made clear by the Supreme Court in the judgments of I Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co.2, Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V.Krishnan3 ald Nidhi v, Ram Kripal Sharmaa.
9. This Court does not find any merit in the singular contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner I ald both the Courts have taken a view which is in accordance I , (2000) I scc 679 3 (1996) 5 SCC 3s3 4 (2017l. 5 SCC 640 I
with law artd no interference is required. No case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shal1 be no .order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGIS \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad
2. The Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court' Hyderabad
3. One CC to Sri K Jamali, Advocate [OPUCI
4. Two CD CoPies VA/gh
HIGH COURT DATED:2710912024 Io(,. -! tr.E :j i,. 16.
,a, a.
J o r.) 17 ct: rilrl
ORDER
CRP.No.2993 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRP -ffi-'*