M.S. Kotak v. Church of South India Trust Association, (CSITA)

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this revision will be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.No. 158 of

2003. Wherever, it is occurred A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act” for succinctness.

3. The Revision Petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the Church of South India Trust Association, represented by its GPA holders by name; Rt. Rev.Dr.B.P. Sugandhar and Mr.J. Manohar.

4. The facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition can be summarized as follows: Church of South India Trust Association is the owner and landlord of the petition-schedule premises, which forms part of C.S.I. Garrison Wesley Church premises situated at Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad within the compound of the Church admeasuring an area of 6498 sq.feet, which consists of ten rooms and verandah and also four garages. Mr.M.S.Kotak is the tenant to the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- exclusive of electricity and water charges, which are also paid by him. It is stated that tenancy is oral and monthly rent becomes payable on or before 10th day of each succeeding calender month. It is stated that whenever he paid rents, the landlord issued printed receipts. The tenant last paid rent for the month of September 2003 and obtained rent receipt bearing No.0632 dated 09-10-2003 duly signed by the authorized agent of the church. It is also stated that earlier number of legal notices were issued to the respondent to vacate the said premises, as it was acquired for evangelical and other activities of Church. Among the said notices, the notice dated 19-8-2000 and 18-2-2003 are filed along with the petition. But the respondent did not respect the need of the Church and did not vacate. Petitioner is a religious and charitable institution, which got number of churches in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and has to provide residential accommodation to all pastors (priests) and workers working in the said churches. Petitioner is not having sufficient residential premises. Some of the buildings owned by him became very dilapidated and need reconstruction. The very senior pastors were accommodated in very old premises called “widows home” in East Marredpally. In its property Board meeting 16-9-2003, petitioner resolved to reconstruct the building. For the purpose of shifting the above said priests the petition schedule property is needed. It accommodated at least four priests. Respondent is in no way connected to the church. In spite of repeated requests and legal notices, he is not vacating the premises causing great loss and hardship to a religious institution. Therefore, the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted.

5. On the other hand, the tenant filed his counter with the following averments in brief: It is averred that there is no date fixed for payment of monthly rent and the rent is payable by the end of succeeding month. It is averred that the respondent-tenant is paying rents regularly without any default. He paid rent on 07-11-2003 through receipt Nos. 06417, 02571, dated 10-12-2003, receipt No. 06708 dated 01-7-2004 and receipt No. 06786, dated 09-2- 2004, there is no amount due from him towards arrears of rent. The contention that the petition schedule property is very huge and admeasuring 6498 sq.feet is not correct. It is further averred that earlier to the filing of the present petition, there was ample correspondence existing between the parties. On 02-2-1995, petitioner addressed notice to the respondent stating that petitioner is a company registered under Companies Act and that petition-schedule property required for setting up a B.Ed., College. It is averred that the replied on 02-3-1995 denying the said allegations and stating that the petition schedule premises is a residential premises and used as such from the very beginning and that it cannot be confronted for any commercial purpose. It is further averred that subsequently through their legal notice dated 15-7-1995 petitioner contended that its Presbyter attached to different Pastorates are not having accommodation and have to be in a rented premises and therefore required to accommodate one of its Presbyters namely, Rev.N.Paul Raj attached Bolarum Pastorate, Rev. V.J. Premanandam attached to Lallaguda Pastorate, Rev. K.A. Charles Wesley of St. John, Rev. D.Jaykumar of S.P.G. Church and Rev. B. Paramanandam, the said notice was suitably replied by the respondent on 19-8-2000. It is averred that the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent stating that petition- schedule property is required for Evangelical activities of the petitioner and requested the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property and the same was replied by respondent. Thereafter, petitioner addressed another notice dated 18-2-2003 stating that not being satisfied with the area in the occupation of the respondent he has been trying to encroach the adjacent land of the church, which is unwarranted and unreasonable for a tenant. That petition schedule property is required for evangelical and other activities of the petitioner. It is averred that the said notice was replied by the respondent on 05-3-2003. It is averred that the respondent is one of the responsible office bearers of the petitioner-institution and carried major improvements and also rendered services from time to time. It is averred that some of the office bearers of the petitioner bore grudge against the respondent and started indulging in sadistic pursuits harassing and intimidating him. It is averred that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner seeking for permanent injunction from interfering with the property and with the usage of western gate of the premises and the same was decreed and is pending in appeal. It is further averred that the respondent never tried to encroach on the adjacent land of the church. He got no intention to cause wrongful loss to the church. Right from 1993, petitioner is indigenously inventing shifting the grounds to evict the respondent by issuing various notices on different grounds. The contention of the petitioner that he got several churches in twin cities and has to provide residential accommodation to all Pastors and workers working in the churches and that the petitioner is not having sufficient accommodation and some of the buildings have become very dilapidated and needs re-construction and for example some of the senior pastors are accommodated in old premises called Widows Home in East Marredpally and the petitioner has resolved to reconstruct the said building and for that purpose he wants to shift the Priests are all not correct. They are all created for the purpose of this petition. Rev. K.C. Martin had recently expired and most of the churches have got a Parsonage and have sufficient residential accommodation to accommodate the pastors to stay in the vicinity of the church to render immediate services to the church. It is also averred that some of the parsonages owned and possessed by the petitioners’ society can accommodate more families. Many of the buildings are deliberately kept unattended. The ground of self-occupation has been invented to evict the respondent. The respondent-tenant prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. On the basis of the rival contentions, the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the respondent-tenant, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R9 were marked.

7. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced by the landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction of the respondent holding that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner- landlord coupled with the admissions of RW.1 that Widows Home was handed over to the builder for re-construction and also the fact that the petitioner failed to establish the requirement of the petition schedule premises for setting up B.Ed college due to non-eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises shows that inspite of best efforts made by the petitioner to evict the respondent by issuing various legal notices right from 1993, the respondent failed to vacate the petition schedule premises and is continuing in the petition schedule premises by paying paltry sum of Rs.250/- per month and enjoying accommodation of 6498 sq.ft., which belongs to a religious organization and therefore the Rent Controller observed that requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner for carrying on Evangelical activities is a bonafide requirement of the petitioner and not with any ulterior motive. Hence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate and hand over possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner- landlord within three months from the date of order i.e., 14-8- 2007, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to get the possession of the petition schedule premises by following due process of law.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-tenant filed R.A.No. 191 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

9. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent-tenant contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is contrary to the variance between pleadings and proof, especially in view of para 5 of the eviction petition and the same has not been noted. It is contended that entire correspondence from 1993 has not been produced before the court and the trial court failed to draw adverse inference against the landlord. If such correspondence is produced, it would have been falsified the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that the author of Ex.P7 and P8 was not examined and the cross-examination of PW.1 made on genuineness of this document has not been considered. The trial court failed to note that the petitioner is not consistent with the stand and grounds of eviction petition and that he has been shifting the stand from time to time, which itself disproved that there is no bonafideness. Further the trial court failed to note that admittedly “Widows Home” was handed over to SB Builders for development and to construct 12 flats to accommodate the priests, which shows that there are no bonafides in the plea of self-occupation. The trial court failed to note that ignorance of the respondent not having any knowledge about Rev.S.P. Vidyasagar, Rev. Danny Subodh, J.P. Vijayarao, Sadanand, Suresh, Zakkius, John Sunder, Susil Victor and D.Samuel residing in rented premises, which is not going to prove the case of the petitioner, as the pleadings and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner disclose these facts. Further the ground of occupation shall subsist on the date of eviction petition and continue to subsist till final disposal of the case. Moreover, it is contended that four priests for whose occupation it is said that petition schedule premises is required had either retired, transferred or expired and therefore, the ground is not available to the petitioner on the date of filing the eviction petition and the same was disappeared on the date of disposal of eviction petition by the trial court. Further there is no denial of the pleading regarding Exs.P7 and 8 and the question of denial by the respondent- tenant does not arise. Further the trial court was kept in dark as to how many residential premises are owned by the petitioner and whether they can accommodate all the pastors and that the pastors for whose occupation the premises is said to be required are not examined as witnesses.

10. After hearing both sides and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 14-8-2007 passed in RC.No. 158 of 2003 by the Additional Rent Contoller, Secunderabad and dismissed R.A.No.191 of 2007 through judgment dated 07-9-009.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-tenant on the sole ground that both the courts below failed to consider the contention of the revision petitioner that the requirement was not bonafide.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the judgment passed by both the courts below and the oral and documentary evidence adduced thereon.

13. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to vacate the petition schedule premises subject to granting sufficient time to the revision petitioner to find out alternative accommodation. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is ready and willing to file undertaking to vacate the petition schedule premises.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is evident that both the courts below concurrently held against the revision petitioner and in my considered opinion, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, the revision petitioner is granted time to vacate the petition schedule premises positively on or before 30th June, 2010 and to this effect, he shall file an undertaking within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the trial court to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 30-6-2010 without fail. If the revision petitioner-tenant fails to comply the order passed by this Court, the respondent-landlord is at liberty to take action in accordance with law, including police-aid.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

16. As a sequel to the dismissal of the main revision, CRPMP.No.6922 of 2009 which is filed to stay all further proceedings including execution of the judgment and decree dated 07-9-2009 passed in R.A.No. 191 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad, is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 06-11-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 0 5 0 of 2009 Circulation Entry No. 1 7 Date: 06-11-2009 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L