The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HABEEB JAFFAR BIN HASAN The Court made the following: ORDER '-;&*:ti (1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICT K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.1823 of 2OL4 ORDER: Challcnging the order dated 2A.06.2O73 passed in R.A.No.238 o{' 20lO bY the learned Additional Cliiel .Iudge, City SmiLll Ci:uses Court, Hvderabad, the orr:sent Civil Revision I't'titiorl is iilcd. '2. 'll.rr: brir'f lacts o[ the casc are that the petition schedulc properlJ';s rr m'.rigi (sh op/ comn'rercial unit) that fo:ms part of a historical builcling called 'Daruishifa' in Hydelabad' During the reign ol Asafia Kingciom, this builcling s cenle' u'as used i1s i.tri A:lit -tlkl:u itta, ii.t:iil-itaill'-il '!11' the I{izar:r' The Asafia iiingdorn corisl-iiuLed a sociei'.' nameC .\njuin: n-e-Moinul Aku'an o:-i i;ri' Ramzazltl ui Mr-rbarak i367 Hijrr. q'hich u'as subse<1uc i-r tli' Icgistcrt:d in r'he,\ear i958 (Regislra'ion No 3 of 1958). Thrs si).icty maintaincd the property a:lrl leased out rrrulgics i:lcing Lhc roaci tc varlous tenants. According to the pe titioncr sot:ie ty, represct-ited bi' Mir Saber A1i (cla iming lo be ihe Se crt:lan,). clectrons u'ere lcld in the year 20O4 for the Managing Conrmittee rvhere he was clected as Secretary' 2 1 SKS,J C.R.P.Ito.Ia23 of 2014 When he requested re spondent No.2 (Karrar Flussain Khan) to enhance the rent and execute a fresh rental deed, the tenant refused. Consequently, the society issued multiple notices: first in July 20O6 demanding arrears of rent (to .r'hich the tenant replied that rent was being deposited in O'P'No'235 of 1991), then on, 18.12.2006 requesting details of deposits, and another on 01.O8.2007 after discovering that respondent No'1 was no longer occupf ing the premises' Respondent No'2 replied on 11.O9.2OO7 stating that respondent No 3 rvas in occupation. A hnal no[ice dated O7.O3.2OO8 was issued to both respondent Nos-2 and 3, to which respondent No'2 replied oo 02.O4.2OO8 claiming he rvas surrendering tenancy and action should be taken against respondent No'3 as a sub- renant. This led ic lhe eviction petition, rvhich the Rent Controller uilimatelv allo'"T'ed cin 25.6.2O1O, ordering eviction of all thre e respondents within cne (11 month.

3. Aggrieved by the eviction order in R.C.No.391 of 20O8 d,ated. 25.6.2010, Mir Zalar Al,i/appeliant (respcndent No.3 in the original case) filed an appeal vide R.A.No.238 of 2010 under Section 2O of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (tease, Rent & Eviction) Con trol Aci. The appellant contended that Kti- i '1 i j .t : i d ,/ l I i :.) SI{S'J C.R.P.No.1823 of 2014 there was no jural relationship between him ancl petitioner herein [Anjuman-e-Moin ui Akrvan) as Mir Saber i\li had no legitimate title to clairn as landlord. He arguecl that the 2004 election was not conducted as per the directions ol this Courl- in C.R.P.No.4843 of 1999, and no elections rvere helcl thereafter. The respondent No. I herein claimt:d he was a tenant who had obtair-red the premises from lhe thcn Secretary, latc Nizamuddil-r, ancl had becn depositing rent as per orders in I.A.3511 ol 1994 in O.P.No.235 of 19'r1' Respondent No.1 herein further statcd that he h.rd entcred into a partrtership agreement with respondcnr" No.3 hercin, who was managing the business during his zrbsence from Inrlia. A cr-ucial argl-lment presented uras lhai irle petii.ion schedule premiscs rvas icclared al wakl propei- \/ :rl; ser rhe Gazette dated 09.02. 1 989, rLnci zrccording |o G.O Ms.No llS0 dated O6.O5.1970, provisions of ltre Rent Contrcl Act are not applicable to rvakf properties. Respondent No.l 'lereill riiso highlightcd ttrat Saber All failed to produce tlny ciocumt,n t' proving his authority to represent the socictl . During the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.375 of 2010 seeking to introduce a certified copy of an order (I.A.No.9trO of 201 j in I.A.No.65O of 2011 in O.P.No.235 of 91) which l'.zrd previously 4 sxs,J C.R-P.No.lE23 of2014 rulcd that Mir Saber Ali was not authorized to represent the society. After examining all evidence, the Additional Chief Judge concluded that Mir Saber Ali had failed to establish his authority to reprcsent the society, and that the property appeared to be u'akf property exempt from Rent Control Act provisions. Consequently, on June 28, 2013, the appeal was allowed, sctting aside thc eviction order and dismissing the original petition. Aggrieved thereby, the prcsent Civil Revision Fct ition is h1ed.

4. Heard Sri M. Mehdi liussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf ol the pctitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondents, nonc appeared on their behalf.

5. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orcler of thc lowcr appellate Court is fundamcntally erroneous, illcgal, and unjust, wrongfully reversing the well-reasoned jucigment of the trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence. Hc further submitted that the Court misinterpreted crucial evidence regarding the existence and identity of the Society, incorrectly concluding there were two different societies rvith variations in address despite clear Registration i I i I I i i I : i I I I i i T i : i I t a l',. 'r'ry/ 5 sI(S,J C.R.P. o.1823 of 20l4 Extracts proving otherwise. Learned cot-ttlst l further submitted that lhc trial Court misapplied the l<:qzrJ prccedent from 2002(61 ALT 268, which deals q'ith n()n existcnt societies, whcreas in the present case, the soci<:tr indisputabl-r' exists u,ith proper authorization documents on rct'ord. Despite the petitioner filing cogent evidence through trx rrlrits P- I , P 13, and P-14 to establish his representativc stalus, the lou'er appellale Court unreasonably shitted the burdcr ol'proof irnd failed to apprcci:Lte these registered documenLs 'r'llrch hacl rlo rebuttaI evidence against them.

6. Learncd counsel for the petitioner contenclcd thiit thcre are significant procedural lapses in the approzrcll t I thc lou'er appellate Court. Despitc acknowledging [hirl pcriodicai elections of the society had occurred, the Cor tr t lzriled ro provide any opportunity to present evidcn<:e ot L t'lis maLte r. The counsel highlighted that after allor.r'ing tlr:' tretilion ior additional evidence, the Court ought to have cillrt:i permittcd the parties to lead further cvidence or remanclcci thc matLer for proper consideralion. The finding that (hi order in

1.A.No.960 of 201 1 operates as res judicata was cltallengeci as legally untenable, particularly as C.R.P.No.4967 of 201i is 6 sxs,J C.R.P.No.1823 of 2014 still pending against that order, and principles of res judicato do not apply to interlocutory orders. He further contended that the conclusion of the Court regarding the property being Wakt Property making the Rent Contro.l case not maintainable - was wholly improper since the referenced Gazette was neither exhibited nor part of the trial Court record. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the lower appellate Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

7. In the light of the submissions madc by the learned counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that there is a fundamental procedural lapse in the order of tl.re lower Appellate Court. The finding that tl-re petiLion scheduie property is a wakf property was arrived at without proper cvidentiary foundation. A meticulous examination of the record reveals that neither in the counter afhdavit hled by the respondent nor in the eviclence adduced before the Rent Controller was there any mention about the petition schedule property being a wakf property. The lower Appellate Court erroneously relied solely on the written arguments of the appellant wherein it was 1 sKs,J C.R. P.No.1823 of 2014 contended that the petition schedule property is part of a building declared as wakf property as per the (iazette dated

09.02.1989.

8. This Court observes with concern tha t the lou'er appellate Court proceeded to determine a substantive jurisdictional issue based on a pleading that was not placed before the Rent Controller at the first instance. The fundamental principles of natural justice demntrci that sut:h material facts, which strike at the root of jurisdiction, rnust be properly pleaded, proved and adjudicated upon u'ith duc opportuniqi to all parties. The lower appellate Court, while referring to the Gazette notihcation, did not ensr-lr(' its proper marking as evidence, nor did it remand thc matl,-'r to the Rcnt Controller for receiving evidence on this crucial aspcct.

9. Furlhermore, the iorver appellate Court marl<ed trx.P-22 without affording any opportunity to the revisiorr petitioncl to contest r.r'hether the petition schedule propertv is indeccl a wakf property. Such a procedure is not in ac< orclance nith established principles of law. When a jurisdictional fact is being considered for the lirst time at the appellatr: slage, the i I l I 8 sKs,J C-R-P.I{o.1823 of 20l4 propcr course would have been to remand the matter back to tl-re Rent Controller to receive evidence on that specific aspect.

10. This Court also notes that despite the observation of the lower appellate Court regarding the property being wakf property, there is no claim from the Wakf Board regarding the subject property. No dispute exists between the Wakf Board anci thc petitioncr managing committee u,ith respect to this pr.)perty. Significantly, the respondent herein admitted in his cr,;ss-examination before the Rcnt Controller that he is the tenant of the petitioner society, and Exs.p17 to p20 (rent receipts) $,ere marked to demonstrate that respondent had p:rid rents to the petitioner society.

11. In these circumstanccs, thc rcliance placed by the lower appellate Court on trx.R22 to concludc that the Rent Ocntroller had no jurisdiction is not in accordance rvith law. Tlrt-: established landlord-tenant relationship bctu,een the parties, as evidenced by the respondent's ou,n admission and tht: rent receipts, cannot be ncgated u.ithout proper aclj udication on the nature of the property after giving adequate opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. 9 SKS,J C.R.P.No.1a23 of 2014

12. Therc'fore , this Court finds no merit in thc or clcr- of the Iorver Appr:llate Court and deems it liable lo be sct aside, thereby confirming the order of the Rent Controllr:r t'htch wzrs passed aftcr proper appreciation of evidence rr:girrcling thc existence o[ sub tenancy and willful default in pavmcnt of renl bv the tenitt-tt.

13. ln vicu. of thc foregoing, this Civil Revisic'n Pt:tition is allou,ed, sctting aside the orcler dated 28.06.2013 p:rsseci ir.r R.A.No.238 of 2O 1O by lhc learned Additionzrl Clricf' Jucigtr' City Smal) Causes Court, Hyderabad. Therc shatl lrc t-ro orrli'r as to costs. Miscellane ous applir:alions, if any pendin3,, sha 11 sttl ilrl closed SD/. AHMED ABOULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I \ //TRUE COPY// f.. { SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Chief Judqe, City Small Casues Court at Hyderabad i. fn" irin"ipal Rent Contr"oller-crim-12the Junior Civil Judge. Hyderabad 5 onl cc i,j sri u Mehdi Hussain, Advocate IoPUC-l ;. O;; CC io Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hasan Advbcate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSI HIGH COURT DATED:1 110612025 ORDER CRP.No.1823 of 2014 03 S'tPM Z o .A - r,.i-1) ALLOWING THE CRP ?At