Telangana HC Upholds Trial Court Eviction Order Over Bona Fide Requirement of Petitioner

- Advertisement -

In Syed Bin Abdullah Ba Hakam vs Shaik Azeem, on 29 May 2020 Telangana HC upheld the decision of the lower Court. But, the Court below quashed the order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court gave an order to evict the Respondent from the Petitioner’s property. Thus, the High Court could not find any illegality, impropriety, or any error of law in the decision of the Court below.

 Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner is the landlord, and the Respondent is the tenant of the ‘‘petition schedule property’’ at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. The Respondent pays Rs.2000/- monthly under Rental Agreement, dated 08.02.2008. He runs a business on that property. The Petitioner is in Saudi Arabia for 25 years and works there. Therefore, the Respondent used to pay the rent to the revision petitioner through his GPA. The Petitioner’s GPA is his father. Initially, the Petitioner and his GPA requested the Respondent to vacate the property. The property is in the central location. Therefore, the Petitioner intended to carry on his business in the central area. His business consisted of old motor spare parts. The Respondent avoided vacating and handing over to the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner filed a complaint in the Trial Court. He sought to evict the Respondent from the petition schedule property.

The Trial Court directed the Respondent to vacate and handover the possession. The transfer was to take place within two months. Thus, the Petitioner would have the liberty to evict the Respondent under the law. This would happen if the Respondent failed to vacate the petition schedule property.

- Advertisement -

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the respondent/tenant filed before the Court below. The Court below, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal. It quashed the order of the Trial Court. Thus, Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/landlord filed this Civil Revision Petition.

Contention of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made submissions. He said that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts. In addition to that, The GPA holder had complete knowledge about the routine affairs of the petition schedule property. He collected the rents. Furthermore, he examined him as P.W.1. The defence set up by the Respondent is not genuine. The Appellate Court did not look into the petition averments. In addition to that, he also submitted that the Appellate Court did not look into the evidence on record. This was not done before quashing the reasoned eviction order passed by the Trial Court. The landlord does not need to step into the witness box to prove his bonafide need. He was stating the Supreme Court Judgement in Raghunath G. Panhale’s case.

Contention of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment. Furthermore, they supported the quashing of the order of the Trial Court. The Petitioner is well settled in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years. Thus, he has no intention to come to India and start an old motor spare parts business. In addition to that, the Respondent never defaulted in the rent payments of the petition schedule property. The personal need for the petition schedule property by the Petitioner is ingenuine. The Petitioner created the said ground only to evict the Respondent and harass him. The Petitioner has another shop in Afzalgunj locality its adjacent shop. This is excluding the petition schedule property. There are contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1. There was nothing wrong that the Court below quashed the order of the Trial Court.

Observations of the Court

- Advertisement -

The Court observed that the only witness examined on behalf of the Petitioner is P.W.1. Here, P.W.1 is his Power of Attorney Holder. The Court said that a power of attorney holder could not depose in place of the principal. The landlord himself did not step into the witness box to bring before the Court for proving his need. Hence, the bonafide need for the Petitioner did not arise.

At first, P.W.1 denied the deposit of Rs.40,000/- made by the Respondent towards a security deposit. Though, he later admitted in his cross-examination about the same. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the Petitioner visited India five years ago. He further disclosed that the Petitioner did not send any letter/notice from Saudi Arabia. The Respondent did not receive any notice to vacate the petition schedule property.

Further, P.W.1 admitted that he has been demanding the Respondent to leave the property for the last eight years. It was not the Petitioner. All these inconsistencies and admissions of P.W.1 established the ingenuity. The plea of the bonafide personal need of the property by the Petitioner is ingenuine.

Held

The Court held that findings of fact recorded by the Court below are according to law. They do not suffer from any error of law. The Court below appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is from the correct perspective. There is nothing wrong with quashing the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge. Furthermore, there is no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the judgment under challenge. Thus, there is nothing to take a different view. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.


- Advertisement -

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

About the Author

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -spot_img