@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rohini, J.@mdashThe landlady is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, filed u/s 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1960 against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad in RA No. 518 of 1994 confirming the order dated
24-6-1994 in RC No.897 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The revision petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 16-7-401 situated at Azampura, Hyderabad. The said premises was let out to the
respondent herein for the purpose of carrying on milk business on a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. The petitioner landlady filed RC No. 897 of 1992
u/s 12(l)(b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 -hereinafter called ''the Act'', seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant
on the ground that the premises is required for reconstruction. In the said petition it has been stated by the petitioner-landlady that the petition
schedule premises was constructed 70 years ago and was in dilapidated condition. It was further pleaded that the premises was unfit for habitation
and requires reconstruction and accordingly sought eviction of the tenant u/s 12(l)(b) of the Act. The respondent-tenant contested the said petition
contending that the condition of the building was not so bad and it does not require demolition. He also contended that he has already filed OS
No.4331 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Vth Assistant Judge City Civil Court, challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation
of Hyderabad for demolition of the structure and the present petition is filed by the landlady with ulterior motive though the premises does not
require immediate reconstruction.
3. Before the Rent Controller on behalf of the petitioner two witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 documents were marked to substantiate
her claim. The respondent was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was filed on his behalf.
4. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties the Rent Controller by order dated 24-6-1994 held that the
petition schedule building is in a dangerous condition and the same has to be reconstructed as claimed by the petitioner-landlady and accordingly
directed the respondent-tenant to handover vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner within one month from the date of the order, and
thereafter the petitioner shall complete reconstruction after demolishing the old structure and handover similar accommodation to the respondent
within eight months from the date of taking vacant possession of the premises.
5. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent-tenant handed over vacant possession of the premises, however, the petitioner-landlady
preferred RA No.518 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad contending that the tenant is
not entitled to seek redelivery of the newly constructed premises. The appellate authority having considered the entire material on record as well as
the relevant provisions of law, by judgment dated 23-6-1999, held that claim of the landlady is not tenable and accordingly dismissed the appeal
with costs directing the petitioner to comply with the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the said judgement the petitioner-landlady has come
up with the present civil revision petition.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions that were raised before the appellate authority and vehemently contended
that the order under revision is a erroneous since the appellate authority has failed to take into consideration the circumstances under which the
petitioner is unable to comply with the order of the Rent Controller. Accordingly the learned Counsel pleaded to modify the order of the Rent
Controller declaring that the petitioner is not liable to deliver similar accommodation to the tenant after reconstruction.
8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority is
in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference and particularly the modification as sought by the petitioner is untenable and not
bona fide.
9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent invoking Section 12(1) of the Act, which provides for recovery of
possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for reconstruction. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 mandates that no order for
recovery of possession u/s 12 shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building after completion of repairs or alterations of
the new building on its completion will be offered to the tenant who delivered possession in pursuance of an order u/s 12(1) for his reoccupation
before the expiry of the period specified by the Controller.
10. It is clear from the order of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority that the petitioner undertook to provide similar
accommodation to the respondent after reconstruction of the building within six months after demolition. In view of the said undertaking given by
the landlady the Rent Controller ordered the respondent to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within one
month, and further directed the petitioner to complete reconstruction and handover similar accommodation to the respondent within 8 months from
the date of taking vacant possession of the premises. Strangely the petitioner-landlady having obtained possession of the petition schedule premises
from the respondent-tenant did not commence reconstruction in accordance with the sanction plan, which was admittedly issued by the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad even before the order of the Rent Controller. On the other hand, she preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent
Controller contending that the respondent is not entitled to seek redelivery of the newly constructed premises as per the provisions of law. Her
specific case before the appellate authority was that there is no necessity to deliver possession after reconstruction. It is clear from the judgment of
the appellate authority that even pending appeal the landlady did not commence reconstruction and as a matter of fact the learned Counsel for the
petitioner states that even as on today reconstruction has not been commenced.
11. When eviction is sought invoking the provisions u/s 12(1) of the Act, it is essential for the landlord to offer the building on completion of repairs
or reconstruction to the same tenant who delivered possession in pursuance of the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 for his reoccupation.
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 requires the landlord to give an undertaking to that effect before the Rent Controller. Before making an order of
eviction u/s 12(1) of the Act not only the satisfaction of the Rent Controller that the building in question is reasonably and bona fide required by the
landlord for carrying out repairs or alterations or demolition is mandatory but giving an undertaking by the landlord that the building on completion
of repairs or after reconstruction as the case may be, will be offered to the same tenant is also mandatory. On a careful analysis of Sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 12 it is clear that the statutory requirement under Sub-section (2) postulates continuance of tenancy with only a short
interruption to enable the landlord to effect repairs or to reconstruct the building in question. Section 12 does not provide for outright eviction and
as such there is no option for the landlord to retain the building for himself after repairs or reconstruction. Once an order of eviction is passed under
Sub-section (1), the landlord is bound to offer the building after repairs or reconstruction to the same tenant for reoccupation. Hence the
contention raised by the landlord before the appellate authority that there is no necessity to redeliver the possession to the tenant is without any
substance and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the same.
12. In this civil revision petition the petitioner filed CMP No.17152 of 2000 to receive a letter of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority
dated 30-7-1999 as additional evidence and to consider the same as subsequent event and to pass appropriate orders in the civil revision petition.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the schedule premises the respondent was originally carrying on business, but by virtue of
the proceedings of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority dated 30-7-1999 the area wherein the premises is located has been declared as
Residential Zone, and therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to offer the premises after reconstruction to the tenant for non-residential
purpose. He further submits that in the circumstances it is impossible for the petitioner to comply with the directions of the Rent Controller and
therefore it is necessary to take into consideration the subsequent developments and to mould the relief by setting aside the orders of the Courts
below to the extent of delivery of similar accommodation to the tenant after reconstruction.
13. The letter dated 30-7-1999 issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority shows that in reply to the application of the petitioner
dated 19-7-1999 he was informed that the land where the suit schedule premises is located is covered by the zonal development plan of Zone X,
according to which the said land is earmarked for Residential Zone and affected by 50'' road. Basing on the said letter the petitioner contends that
it is not permissible to construct a non-residential premises and offer the same to the respondent to carry on business. He further contends that as
per the proceedings of the HUDA if 50'' wide road is maintained, only a small piece of land will be available to the petitioner for reconstruction of
building and therefore it is not possible for him to comply with the direction of the Rent Controller to handover similar accommodation to the
tenant.
14. It is true that the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and to mould the relief accordingly to promote substantial justice to the
parties. However it is well settled that the Court should be cautious in taking cognizance of the subsequent events and developments and
scrupulously comply with the rules of fairness to both sides. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Kanbir B. Goyal AIR 2002 SCW 278, the Supreme Court
held as follows:
...subsequent event may be one purely of law or founded on facts. In the former case, the Court may take judicial notice of the event and before
acting thereon put the parties on notice of how the change in law is going to affect the rights and obligations of the parties and modify or mould the
course of litigation or the relief so as to bring it in conformity with the law. In the latter case, the party relying on the subsequent event, which
consists of facts not beyond pale of controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment or pleadings
under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. Such subsequent event the Court may permit being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it
would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties.
15. In the instant case it is clear from the record that the petitioner/landlady as PW1 deposed before the Rent Controller that since the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad did not sanction plan for construction of a mulgi, she obtained plan for residential purpose and therefore she can easily
provide accommodation to the respondent after reconstruction. That was not objected by the tenant and the learned Rent Controller while
accepting the undertaking of the petitioner/landlady ordered eviction u/s 12(1) of the Act. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel
for the respondent the inability of the landlord to construct non-residential premises was already considered by the Rent Controller while directing
eviction u/s 12(1) the Act. Hence the same cannot be taken as a subsequent event. The petitioner after construction of residential premises is
bound to offer accommodation to the tenant as undertook by her before the Rent Controller.
16. The further contention of the petitioner is that in view of the orders of HUDA to maintain 50'' wide road, it is not possible to comply with the
order of the Rent Controller to handover the premises to the tenant after reconstruction. It is pertinent to note that whereas the learned Rent
Controller ordered eviction on 24-6-1994, the petitioner has come up with the plea expressing her inability to execute the order for the first time in
this revision petition filed in the year 2000. Whether the orders of HUDA earmarking the area in question for Residential Zone were issued
subsequent to the institution of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and how it would affect the petition schedule premises and what would
be the exact extent of land available to the petitioner after leaving space for road widening are all being pure questions of fact, in the absence of
necessary amendment to the pleadings, the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court at the stage of revision. That apart, Section 12 is
a special provision under which eviction can be ordered subject to the condition that the building after reconstruction will be offered to the same
tenant. Hence if the plea of petitioner that she is unable to offer accommodation for reoccupation of the tenant is accepted the very object of
Section 12 will be frustrated. Such an amendment is impermissible since the same would be contrary to the scope of Section 12 itself. Therefore, I
am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner having given an undertaking that she would provide
accommodation to the tenant and having obtained possession of the premises from the tenant cannot be permitted at the stage of revision to plead
inability to offer the premises after reconstruction for reoccupation of the tenant under the guise of subsequent events. Hence CMP No. 17151 of
2000 is dismissed.
17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is open to the petitioner to move the Rent Controller furnishing particulars of space lost
by her for road widening and explaining her inability to offer similar accommodation to the tenant-respondent on reconstruction of the building. In
the event of any such application being filed, the learned Rent Controller, after affording due opportunity to the respondent, shall decide as to the
genuineness of the contention of the petitioner-landlady regarding the space utilised for road widening and pass appropriate orders as to the extent
of premises to be handed over to the tenant after reconstruction.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the civil
revision petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs.
