Anj uman-e-Moin-ul-Akhwan v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan

:SRI M MEHDI HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent : NONE APPEARED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2070 OF 2014 Civil Revision Petition filed under section 22 of A.P. Building ( Lease, Rent, Eviction Control Act ) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated.28.6.2013,passed in R.A.No.384 ot 2010, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. Between: Anj uman-e-[tloin-ul-Akhwan,Rep by its new General Secretary Mujtaba Moosavi,S/o.Late Mir Nawazish Ali Moosvi, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.21-1 -134, Delhi Darwaza, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad General Secretary of Anjuman - e - Moin - ul - Akhwan Darulshifa, Hyderabad. (AMENDED AS pER C.O., DT.O4t03t2O24 rN |A.NO. 1/2024) ...PETITIONER AND Mohd. Afzal, S/o. Ghulam Tr:o^oi A_ged about 63years, Occ:Bufferring Business R/o ttrrurgee No.22- 8-361/5-, ntawa sart6u[ Mubarak, oarurs"hifa, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl M MEHDI HUSSATN Counsel for the Respondent : SRI HABEEB JAFFER BIN HASAN ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K' SUJANA C L REVISION PETITION Nos' 1522 & 2O7O of 2OL4 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involve d in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the same, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this comrnon order'

2. C.R.P.No. 1522 ol 20 14 is hled challenging the orcier dated 28.06.2O 13 passed in R'A No 386 of 2010 by the learnedAdditionalChiefJudge,CitySmallCausesCourt, Hyderabad.

3. C.R.P.No-2O70 of 2014 is frled challenging the order daLed 28.06.2O13 passed in R A' No' 384 of 2O1O bv i)re learnedAdditionalChiefJuclge,CitySmallCauses(]ou:-i" Hyderabad The brief lacts of the cases are that both R'A'No 386 of 4. 201O and R.A.No 384 of 201O arose from eviction peti[ions lrled by the lancllord under the A.P. Buildings (Irase, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, seeking eviction of the tenants on the 2 SKS,J C.R-P.Nos.1522 & 2O7O of 2Ot4 ground of ivilful default in the payment of rent for the period from November 1998 to October 2OO0_ The landlord alleged that rl-re tenants had failed to pay rent for almost two years cicspitc repeated demands, compelling him to fite the eviction petitions. The tenants, however, denied any wilful defautt and asserrcd that they had paid the rent regularly, although the landlord relused to issue receipts. The Rent Controller, after consirlering the material on record, found in favour of the larrdlord and p:rssed eviction orders, which were subsequcntly confirmetl bv the appellate authority. Challenging these concurrettt findings, the tenants flled revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court remanded the ma[ters to the al)pellate authority for fresh consideration, directing a reappraisal of certain aspccts ol Lhc evidence. J. Upon rc,rnand, the appellate authority rc_evaluated the evidencc and submissions alresh. In R.A. No. 3g6 of 2O10, the tcnant reiterated that he hacl consistently paid the rent and that the landlord's claim was unfounded and inter-rded to evrct him unfairll,. It was also contended that the landlord had reflused to acknowledge or issue receipts for the payments rnade. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence, the appellate i , ,ta .,/. /,. .// .,,I 3 SKS'J C.R-P.Nos.1522 & 2O7O of 2OL4 authority found merit in the tenalt's defense and concluded that the alleged default was not wilful' Accordingiy, the appeal was allowed, the order of eviction was set aside, and the eviction petition was dismissed. Similarly, in R'A No 384 of 2O10, the tenant raised comparable defenses, which u'ere accepted by the appellate authority upon reappraisal of the evidence. The authority held that the landlord faiied to establishwilfuldefaultandthatthetenant'svcrsionappeared credible. As a result, this appeal too was allowcd, the eviction order was set asicle, and the peLition was dismissed' Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are frled.

6. Heard Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel appearlng on behalf of the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondent, none appeared on their behalf' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 7. order passed by the lower appellate Court is unjust' legally flawed, and contrary to the evidence on record The appellate court wrongly reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court witltout properly appreciating the documentary evidence 4 sKs,J C.R.P.Nos.1522 & 2O7O of 2Ot4 submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that the findir-rg regarding the existence of two different societies was baselcss,, as the registration extract clearly showed that only onc society exists. The petitioner had filed proper authorization documents, including trxhibit p 13, to prove his aulhority to represenl the society. However, the appeliate court ignored these documents and wrongly concluded that the pctitioner had not discharged his burden.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the appellate court misapplied the legal precedent it relied upon and failed to give thc pctilioner a fair opportunity to prescnL additional evidence, espccially regarding the socicty's elcctior.ts and other relevant documents. He also argued that the finding of the cor-rrt that the property is Wakf pr.)perly q,rrs based on a Gazette notification that rvas not part of thc lrial court's record and therefore could not be rclied upon. The Rcnt Control petition was filed solely for the lixation of fair rent, and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to hear the mattcr. The appellate court,s conclusion to the contrary, u'ithout anv proper pleading or erridence from the tenant, \l.as erroneous. Therefore, he prayed the court to set aside the i l I t i 5 sKs,J C.R.P'Nos'1522 & 2O7O ot 2OL4 ',I /.7 orders of the appellate Court by allowing these revisron petitlons. ln light of the submissions made by the learned counsel g . for the petitioner and a perusal of the material availabie on record, it is clear that the decision of the appellate Court is flawed due to procedural irregularities and the misapplication of legal principles' A major error was that the Court relled on a Gazette notifi'cation from 1989 to declare the petition schedule property as Wakf land' However' this document u'as neither marked as evidence nor properly introduced before the Rent Controller' The respondent did not raise this issue in their response or evidence' yet the appellate Court adopted an opporluniLY to this claim without giving the petitroner contest it. This violates the principles of natural iustice' as a party must be given the opportunity to rebut any material evidence used against them'

10. Moreover, the appellate Court failed to recognize that the Wakf Board never made any ciaim over the property' and committee had been functronrng the Petitioner's managrng without any interference or dispute The resPondent himself 6 SI(S,J C.R-P.[os.1522 & 2O7O of 2OL4 a) admitte<l during cross examination that he was a tenant of the petitirtner's society, further undermining the appellate coLrrt's rcasoning. 1 1 . The appellate Court also ignored important documentirry- evidence, such as Exhibit p- 13, rvhich proved that the petitioner had the authoritlr to represellt the socie[2. T[rc Court r.r'rongly concluded that there were two separate .s,r,'ic jcs. ,,r ,.laim that was conIradicted by tht. regisrrarion rr:t:ords, u,hich proved that only one society ll,,as ofhcially r egisterc,:i. tiv failing to correctly appreciate thesc facts, the appcllatc Court unjustly overturned the ivell-reasoned jildgnrent of the Rent Controller, who had jurisdiction over the iiia i [e r, :rs the pelition was filed solely lor ttre fixation of fair i-r:rrt I 2. In addition, the appeliate Court erred furthe r by not aliou.ing t.he petitioner to present adclitional evidence rcgarcling, the elections and other relevant documents of the society. Therefore, the orders of the appellate Court is liable to be sct aside. The matter requires a fresh examination by thc Rent Controller, who should evaluate whether the property i u ,., ,/. / 7 SKS'J C.R-P.Nos.1522 & 2O7O of 2014 is indeed Wakf land and allow proper evidence to be prese ntcd by both parties

13. [n vier,r' thereof, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 28'06'2013 passed in R.A.Nos.386 and 384 of 2010, respectively' by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court' Hyderabad' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall sta-nd closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Court of the Principal Rent Controller -cum- Xll Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI M MEHDI HUSSAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI HABEEB JAFFER BIN HASAN [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies TUgh Yi/ l I I HIGH COURT DATED:11106/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.1522 &2070 ot2O14 ---=::iL.---\', ,1"-.=.--^--,'r .'/;','.''.-|'.,,,,.j1;\ I r',\- 'L,-. :. ,, \ 0I ttll 2[15 i.:t -:. .:l ,7,i' ALLOWING BOTH THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS n.d*\ V+- Et4\a'