Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kvss Prasada Rao vs Godavari Bai And Ors. on 29 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)ALD222, 1998(1)ALT799
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein was the tenant (hereinafter referred to as the Tenant') and the respondents herein were the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords'). The respondents-landlords had instituted RCCNo.158 of 1992 in the Court of the in Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for evicting the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation. The said RCC was filed by the landlords under Section 10(2)(v) of AndhraPradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. On evidence the learned Rent Controller found that the tenant did acquire alternative residential premises and the premises, which was leased out by the landlords, have been kept locked and therefore the Rent Controller was pleased to direct the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within 30 days and was also directed to pay costs of Rs.500/-to the landlords. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of eviction, the tenant carried the matter in appeal under Section 20(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge on hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.
2. The learned Counsel Mr R. V. Subba Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant submitted at the Bar that on evidence it stands proved that the tenant-petitioner herein has not acquired the premises of his own but his wife purchased the building in her own name and therefore the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below is not maintainable in law. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Section 10(2)(v) of the said Rent Control Act, which reads as under :
"(v) that the tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, or...,,.,"
With this provision the learned Counsel Mr. R. V, Siibba Rao submitted at the Bar that the law requires the tenant himself must secure alternative accommodation and he must cease to occupy the building which is leased out to him by the landlord.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. R. V. Subba Rao further submitted at the Bar that it may be a fact that for purchasing the building/premises, the tenant must have spent money out of his pocket and the building might have been purchased in the name of his wife. But that fact cannot be taken into consideration because the tenant has not acquired the alternative premises of his own and secondly the benarni transaction is prohibited under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and under the provisions of the said Act, the tenant has no right to say that though the property purchased in the name of his wife, the property belongs to him; such defence is not available to the tenant though the transaction is held to be benami, the wife of the tenant has become absolute owner of the said property and therefore the tenant cannot recover possession from his own wife and therefore it must be held that the tenant has not secured the alternative premises of his own.
4. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Subba Rao for the tenant-petitioner herein that there has been an agreement between the parties and with the agreement the tenant and his wife are residing separately. The tenant has no concern whatsoever with the residential premises acquired by his wife.
5. While rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel SmL C. Jayasree Sarathy appearing on behalf of the landlords-respondents herein submitted at the Bar that the defence taken by the tenant is no legal defence. An agreement to slay separately has been brought into existence only to evade the provisions of the Rent Control Act and only to harass (he landlords in not handing over (he possession of the petition schedule premises.
6. By hearing submissions of both the parties, the only point arises for consideration of this Court as to whether the tenant can take a defence that his wife has secured the alternative premises and therefore the order of eviction cannot be passed ?
7. In the present case, it is evident from the evidence of both the parties that the defence taken by the tenant that there was an agreement between him and his wife to stay separately is an after thought. The agreement E\.R25 dated 3-10-1986 brought into existence only to evade the eviction decree. The agreement provides that the tenant would pay a sum of Rupees Eight lakhs to his wife and children for their maintenance and the custody of the children to remain with the wife and they were supposed to stay at Guniur. But on evidence and on facts, it stands proved that the children were staying at Hyderabad till April, 1993. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the agreement was brought into existence for the purposes of this case. The tenant himself admitted that after October, 1986 that his wife and himself met on several occasions, hi the cross-examination the tenant has admitted that he is not aware as to whether his wife purchased any building in her own name. But he had admitted in the cross-examination that he had given money to his wife on three occasions Rs.1,65,000/-, Rs. l,45,OCXy- and Rs. 1,45,OOCV- by three separate Bank Pay Orders to the vendors in the presence of the Registrar, If this fact itself conclusively proves that the relations between the tenant and his wife were not strained. Instead of purchasing the properly in his own name, the tenant has purchased the property in the name of his wife to avoid the eviction. Though the tenant has stated in his evidence that he is not aware whether he had purchased a house in the name of his wife and paid an amount by way of Pay Orders. This is an evasive answer given by the tenant. The tenant is a qualified Chartered Accountant. He is nol a lay man. On evidence it stands proved that he had paid different amounls to the vendors from whom his wife had purchased the building in her own name. He is pleading ignorance only to evade eviction. By the entire evidence and also from the evidence of the tenant, this Court holds that the agreement to live separately is an after thought. Moreover the summons of Rent Control Case was received by him at the address bearing Door No.4-4-217/1 and 2 though the tenant stated in his evidence that he does not remember at which address he received the summons.
8. One more fact which would go against the tenant is that the tenant and his wife are carrying out the business under the name and style of M/s. Saiya Sai Chemicals and Feeds Pvt. Limited and his \\ife is one of the Directors of the said business and they had been doing business jointly at House No.5, Milhila Complex, Hyderabad. It also stands proved from the evidence that he had given extension of his Telephone Number 551535 to his wife. Taking the above facts into consideration, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the defence put forward by the tenant is totally concocted and false. Il stands established from the evidence on record that the tenant and his wife continued to slay in the premises acquired by the tenant in the name of his wife.
9. Now the legal question arises for consideration of this Court : Whether it is the requirement of the law to evict the tenant from the tenanted premises, the tenant must secure alternative accommodation/building in his own name ?
10. By reading Section 10(2)(y) of the aforesaid Act, it is evident that the Legislatures have not used the word in the section that the tenant has secured alternative building in his own name. .In the absence of the words "in his own name" it can be interpreted that the tenant must secure alternative building where he will have a legal right to stay that is the requirement of law. In the present set of facts, the tenant has secured alternative building though it was purchased in the name of his wife, the tenant has a right to stay alongwith his wife as the relations between them is cordial. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the tenant did secure alternative building and ceased to occupy the building which was leased out to liim by the landlords for continuous period of four months wilhoul reasonable cause.
11. A similar view was expressed by the Delhi High Court in a ruling reported in V.K. Malhoim and another v. Smt. Ranjii Kaiir, 1985 (1) All India RCJ 250.
12. Taking the above facts into consideration, this Court holds that both the Courts below rightly passed an order of evictioa This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below. The petitioner is granted three months lime to vacate the premises.
13. Hence the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.