1. B. Shashikala v. Patlolla Anjamma

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P.No. 2709 of 2023 ORDER Th is Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 <tf tlne Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act' 1960 (for shorL 'thc Act') is directed against the order d't'21'O7 2023 in RCA No I of 2O2l onthe|rleoftheSeniorCivilJudgeatVikarabad,(hercinaftcr referred to as 'first appellate Court') whereby the order in R C No O 1 of 20 i5 on the hle of Junior Civil Judge, Tandur' R'R District at Tandur (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') has been affirmed'

2. The petitioners herein are the appellants in the underlying appeal before the first appellate Court and respondents in the RC before the trial Court. 3'TherespondenthereinhadlriedtheRCunderSectionlo(2)(i) & 10-C(a) of the Act as amended from time to time seeking eviclion of the appellalts/resPondents. 4-Heardlearned,counselfortherevisionpetitioncrs'Srt N.Pravcen Reddy, Ieaned counsel appearing for the respondent' arld peruscd the record. i I I I I i i I I i I ! I ! t I I i i : i I ! I 3 : i i I I t 2

5. The partics hcreinaftcr will be referred to as :t tr their posirion in t hc RC bt,lbrc I he trial Corrrt. Brief facts of the case: fr. The case ol the petitioner in RC before the t -: rrl Court is that hcr- husband Patlolla Bheem Reddy was the owne - of the buildrng lrcrrring No.a)- I l2 situaLed :rt Vinayak Chowk, Tar r ur; (herein:rftcr rclcrre d to as 'l?C schedulc property') that the a:< resaid propcrty lc':rsccl out t,r onc [J.Vrja-v Kumar on a monthly rer-rt r I Rs.2OO/-; and that the aforesaicl lcase was ora[. '/. lt is thc further case of the petitioner that alr 3r the death of P.l3heem Redcl-t , thc petitioner, being the wife of sa i I Bheem Reddy l)r'carne thc ou ncr of ttre RC schedule property :rrr L gor the satne l)rutaled in her nzrnre in the municipal records.

8. It is the ftrrtlter case of the petitioner that thr original ten:rnt

13.Vijzry Kurnar died leaving behind his legal reirs i.e., the rcspondents. that the petitioner's husband had hled I C.No.2 of 2010 against the isr rcspondent's husband for the deposi rf rent into the Courqand to continue with snch deposit into the CorLr t. \ 3 9 lcgal noticc to the respondents to PaY It is the further case of the petitioner that she got issued a responclents on 14.06.2014 calling upon the ren[ and also arrears of rent, to which the through notice, dt. 1507 2Ol4 to inform the respondents rePlied bank account details of the petitioner to deposit the rent: that the petiLioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs 7'5OO/ deposited by the respondents towards rent in to the Court; and that the respondents cleposited rent up to March, 2Ol4 @ Rs 2OO/- per month arld thereaftcr they have committed default in payment of rent- 1O. lt is the further case of the pctitioner that after the death of her husband-P.Bheem Reddy, she has been living with her children in a rented house at Sanga Reddy and getting her two children educated; andthatsince,herhusband-BheemReddyhadla:rdsatNarayanpur Village, which is nea-rer to Taldur, the petitioner required the house let out to B.Vijay Kumar under ora-l tenancy lor herself and her children to educate them at Tandur' as tJley are not having any resiclential house at Tandur to live, which ts a bona ftde requilement and. thaL the respondents being wrllful defaulters in respect of the RC schedule property are liable to be evicted' I I i I r! 'i, 1: 4 I l. On bchall of tlrr: respor.rder.r ts though varioLr; oltjec.tions u'erc: taken as to the.luriil rclationshilt between the pr: itionr:r and the respondcnts and also u,ith regard to the r,l.illful dcfa,r t in ltayment ol rcnt from April, 201 4 t() Febmary, 2O 15, and also v': r,l.r rcflard to the claim ol pctitioner's bona fide rcquirement, the trial Court by considering the aforesaid issues in detail had allou'ec the RC filed bv the pel itionr'r.

12. On the trial Court allorving the RC filed by t re petitioner in tcrms of Scction 19(2)(i) and 1O(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Acr hr iding that there cxists jurarl rclationship bettveen the petitioner and r .spondents arld that the pelltioner is entitled to seek eviction of thc respondents in respect of the RC schedule property, the respon,l .nts have filed apped uide RCA.No. I of 2O2l bclore the lirst appel: te Court under Section 2O(l) of thc Act and that the first appe llate Court by considerrng the evrdence on record and also havir 1 regzrd to the provisions ol Section t0 C(a) of thc Act had held tha thc petitioner hcrein had sought lor er.iction of the respondenrs from the RC schcdufe l)ropcrt-y on the ground that she is a u.ido.r on Lhe date of I filing of the petition and is entitled to recover imme,l ate possession of the said propertv by evicting the respondents; an th:rt the trial n 5 Court had rightly answered the point in favour of the petiLioner, and accordingll., dismissed thc appcal. l3- Aggneved thereb!', lhc prcsent Revision is hled by thc respondcnts- |4. On behalf o[ the revision petitioners/ respondents in the R C it rs contended rhat the 1sL pe Litioncr/ rcspondent is the wifc and pctitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the original tenant against whom the rcspondent / pctiLioner had hled the suit for eviction without having any valid and justrfrable ground only to causc har dship.

15. lt is further contendcd on behalf of the petitioner/ respondents that the trial Court had erred in :rllowing the eviction peLition hled by the rcspondent/ petitioner and the appellate Court further crred in confrrming the ordcr of the trial court wit'l.out considering the settled positron of law under Section 10-C(i)(a) of the Act'

16. On behalf o[ the rcspondents it is further contended that a strict compiiance o[ conditrons of Section lO-C(i) is required to be shown for the peLiLioner to seek eviction to recover possession of thc premiscs, immediatelY. I :. i 1 ! I , i i I I iI ? I i ! ;i EI E I t f t t l I I I l l i i I I 6 17 On br:half o[ thc rcsporrdents it is further rr r lencr:d that thc c'laim of t1'rc pe titioncr of bona fde rcquirement ] r ()r1lt put up in order to get thc responcLents evicted lrom the RC s,: rcdule property; that the pctrtroner has an ancestral house in Na'r 1'arrour Village, rvhere at her agricultural lands are situatcd, and a; such, the claim of *re petitiont:r to have thc RC schedule house si r rrrtecl aL Tandur for her bonc; Jit^/e requirement. cannot be accepted. I U. On br:half of thc rt:sponcients it is also cor r sndr:d that the r:laim of thc ll('titioner o[ lraving pcrmanentlv nro, r cl Ir. Tandur is contra{/ to lhe claim of Lhe pctitioner of she along .r th her children having perrnancntlv movcd art ay lrom Taldu' to undertake agricultural activitics in her agricultural land situat( ( r at Narayanpur Village and scttled in Sangzr Reddy for her childrer s education, and ttrus, there is no need for the petitioner to scel( r,ictron of R.C. schedule houst' on the ground c,f bono firle requrrr r rr:nt which was r.rot considerccl by borl-r thc Courts belou,. t9. On bchalf of the respondents it is also cor t r:nded that the petitioner did not place any record to prove that he'- husband is the ou'ner of the RC schedule property and that the tnrr Corr rt er-red in assuminft&c ownership of the RC schedule propert,/ in farrour of the 7 petitioner's husband-P.Bheem Reddy arrd lurther erred in assumlng thc tenancy bctr'"t'en the petitioner the respondents herein as an oral tcnanc)' 20- On behatt o[ the respol-rdcnts it ]s further contended that mere entry of the namc of the petitioner in municipal records would not confertitleinrespectoftheRCschedulepropertyinfavourofthe petitioncr's husband as the salc deed' under which the petitioner's R.C scheclule house, the name ol thc is shorvn as co'owner, and as such the husband Purchased, the petitioncr's husband sister petitioner cannot maintain tLre R'C'

21. On behalf oi the respotrdents it is contended that the petitioner had suppressed the lact of part of property being sold in the year 2OO3, during thc lrfetrme of petitioner's husband' and also the R C schedule property being rn the name of petitioner's husband along with his sister as co o$'rlcr' the petitioner cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the RC schedulc property for her to frle the subiect RC sceking eviction o[ the respondents' and thus' the order of the trial Court as afhrmed by the hrst appellate Court are liable to be s€t aside by this Court under Section 22 of the Act' i I, i l B

22. In srrl>port of their colttentions. rcliance h:rs bcen placed on tl.re decisior.rs in Hind.ustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. u. Ditbaho; Singhr, S.P.Chenga.tvdrq.gd naidu u. Jagannathz Thunga Bai & Ors. v. Vishalakshi Heggad.thi and Ors.3, Wod.i t Amital & Orsa, Nathi Devi u.Radha Devi Gupthas.

23. Per crtttra, learned counsel appearing for t I ' pctitioner had sought to sustain thc ordcrs of borh the Courts [: rlorv contending tllat the boLh the Courts bclow have riglttly consi I,rr:rl the case o[ lhe bona ftle requirement ol thc petitioner in seekrr q cviclion of the rcspondents from the RC schedule property, an(1 .hr-rs. sought for dismissal ol this Revision, '21. I havc taken note of the respective contention:r rrgcci_

25. At tht'outset, it is to be noted ihat. the prcselrt Rcvjsion is filed in terms of Scction 22 of tl'tc Act rvhereby tl-re appeLl I rts hcrein being the respondcnts in the cviction suit belore the t ral Court u,ere clirected to be evicted and aggrieved bv the said orde r har.ing hled an appeal in terms of Section 20 of the Act and the hrst appellate Court 2014 (9) SCALE 657 '(1994) 1 SCC I r Nelru/u/ooz:l/t925 ' (2002) 6 sc 16 5 AIR 2oo5 sc 648 .,"/ / 9 having affirmed the order of the trial Court, the scope of interference by this Court in a revision unclcr Section 22 of tlre Act is limited to the extent that, whether thc findings of both the Courts below suffer from any inherent defect or based on inadmissible or irre]evanL material or perverse

26. It is to be noted that in excrcise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of tllc Act, thc High Court cannot re appreciate the evidence unless rclcvant evirlence is excludcd and irrelevant evidence is considered [See: Harshauardhan Chokkani u. Bhupendrd N. Patel6, Dr. G. Jagadeshwar Reddg u. Dr. I{. Dhanna ReddgT, J. Shiv Kumor and another u. P. So,ttannmosl. 27 . On behalf of the respondents it is vehemently contended that strict compliance with the conditions of Section lO-C(i) of the Act is required and that the petitioner hal'ing failed to demonstrate of her meeting the sarcl requirement, and both the tnal Court as well as the frrst appellate Court having only considered that the petitioner being widow and the prcmises let out by her husband is required for use by her had ordered for recovery of immediate possession of said premises without considering the evidence adduced by the 6 (2002) 3 scc 626 ' 2oo7 (2) ALT 559 I 2oo7 (3) ALT 111 I l i I ! f I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ! ! I I I l i i T 10 respondents of the claim of the petitloner of bon.a. lir1, requircment to be not genuine

28. The said contention of the responclents belorr the trial court as vvell as the first appellate Court u.as rejected b1' )oth the Collrts by giving cogent reasons and the said hnding bc r EI a concurrent findir.rg of facl. interference therewith in a revision i . not permitted, unless it is shown to this Court of the said hnding tc )c pclerse.

29. Tl-rough on behal[ of the rcspondents it is co r '.cnded that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the propert] rd lhc samc is owrred by her husband along with his sisler, ard sirl :e, the marn RC $'as not fi1ed jointly with the co-owner which furct, thc trial Court ought to h:rvc considered while holding that the'r exrsts a jural relationship beLween the respondenls and the pet t oner as tenant and l:urd1ord, it is to be noted that it is settled poslt ( n of law that in mattcrs of rent control and eviction, it is not nccess l 1, to join all co owncrs of the premises as a party to the proceeding. 30, The Apex Court in the case of Tmt. Krrsthuri I adhakrishno'n & Ors us M.Chinnigan & Anr.e by following earlie r dccision in lhe (2016) 3 Scc 296 'q 11 1 I I case of Dha,nnalol us l{alawatibai And. Orsro had held that it is not nccessary to implead the co ou,ner as a necessary party to the evlctlon pe Lltron

31. Fulther, it is also to be notcd that since, both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have recorded concurrent l-rndings with regard to the bona f.de rcquirement of the petitioner of the RC schedule property, and as it is not shown to this Court that thc said findings of bot.I. the Courts below suffer from any inherent defect or based on inadmissible or irrelevant material or perverse, thc said concurrent frndings cannot be intcrlered by this Court in a rcvrsion Uled under Section2 2 of the Act as held in the case of Va.llampati Kalauqthi u. Ilaji Istnaill l.

32. Further, on behalf of the respondents though it is contended that the petitioner having failed in strict compliance of Section 1O-C of the Act, fi.rstlg as the pctitioner had another house at Narayanpur where her agricultural lands are situated and the distance between Tandur and Narayanpur not bcing too long and in fact Tandur Town having spread up to Narayanpur, and thus, the petitioner cannot claim of bonafide requirement of house at Tandur, it is to be noted 'o (2002) 6 scc 16 II(2001) 4 scc 26 = AIR 2oo1 sc 1441 I T I i l i. I I I ! l2 tlrat thc petitioner bcing the o$.nr:r is entrtled to ch I rsc..r.lrich housc shc would requirc for her use and it is not for tl r respondents to dictate/tcll in rrhich house the pctitioner has to ltr.e. 33- Further, it is :rlso to be noted that the res rton<lcnts, while clisputing the claim ol the petrtioner o[ her bonoJitt, reqrrirement of hcr horrse for her rrse, had claimed that the pr itiont:r had an ancestral housc at Naray:rnpur and thus can ri (: thcrein. The respondcnts tl\ the said statement made, admir r ) Lltc lact of thc said housc :lt Narayanpur being an ancestral pr,) rert\. and thus r.r'ould be a joint property and not the exclusivc rropcrtv of the pctitroltcr alonc for hcr to livc in the said house.

34. Irrrrtht-r. it is to be noted that in terms of Secri, n l{){i)(a) of thc Act, a wido\," is only rcquired to show that ttre pr I i.riscs let out ts required for use by trer and her family in order to ap t.oaclt the Court for recovcr] of imrnediate posscssion of such prerr ses irncl is not requircd to dcmonstratc t}rc bonafdes of her require I ent.

35. Furthcr. though t1.e learned counsei fcrr revision petrtioncrs/ respondents placed relialce on the decis I ns rendered bv varrou:a Courts rncludrng the Apex Court in Hindus:an petroleum Corpn. Ltd.'s case( 1 supra), S.p.Chengalaoraga .,{atd.u's case(2 i' . \-. 13 suprcr), Thuttga Bdi's cc.se(3 supra), Wadi's cose(4 supra)' Nathi Deui's case(5 supru), the principle laid douT r In the said decisions is with rcgard to the scope of revision at.rd jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act and also on the aspect o[ u'hen an ordcr of trial Court can be held to be perverse for being interfered in revisiott'

36. However, taklng note of the lacts of the present case' this Courtisofthcviewthatthedecisionsrelieduponbythecounselfor respondents, is in relation to general principles and would not I I advance the case of the appeilants 3T.since,thetrialCourtaswellasthefirstappetlatcCourthaving consideredtheStandoftherespondcntsindctailandhavingheldthc pctitioner to be entitled to get the rcspondents evicted from the RC schedule property, and as it is not shown to this Court of the said lLnding of both the Courts below bcing pewerse' this Court is of the view that the order of the hrst appell:rte Court afhrming the order of the trial Court, does not suffer from any perversity or iliegality for bcing interfered wittr by this Court in exercise of revisional powers under Sectlon 22 of the Act 38'Inviewoftheabove,thisCourtisoftheviewthatthepresent Crvil Revision Petition as filed is devord of merit and has to fail' 74

39. Accordinglv, the Civil Revision Petition is drsr,t ssecl No orrlcr lrs to costs

40. Consequ<'ntly, miscell:rneous petitions, if an, pending shall st:rnd closed. SD/- V.KAVITHA I)EPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER l i To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. 2. One CC to SRI RAJESH KUMAR H Advocate [OPUC 3. One CC to SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY Advocate [OPt](l 4. Two CD CoPies CR/PSI HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER CRP.No.2709 o,<'/ 2 3 .lc. \) s\ $, o t , I ! I I A * c u DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ll W q IJ