Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenant, Mohammad Ahsan, against the orders of the Rent Controller and the District Court, which restrained him from making structural alterations in the suit premises pending an eviction suit filed by the landlord, Mohammad Gous. The landlord had filed the eviction suit in 1995 under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act on grounds of bona fide requirement, nuisance, creation of sub-tenancy, and addition/alteration to the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit, the landlord moved an application before the local Municipal Corporation for inspection, which resulted in a report dated 01.06.2016 stating that a shutter had been fixed into the disputed property, indicating structural alteration. Based on this report, the landlord filed an application in June 2016 seeking to restrain the tenant from making any structural changes, constructions, alterations, modifications, or removing any portion of the suit property, or from using the steel shutter illegally fixed. The tenant filed a reply denying the contentions. The Rent Controller, by a reasoned order dated 30.11.2016, allowed the landlord's application and restrained the tenant from causing any structural changes in the suit property in any manner till the disposal of the eviction proceedings without following due process of law. The tenant challenged this order before the District Court by filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. The District Judge, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal on 27.03.2019. The tenant then filed the present civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court. The High Court heard the learned advocate for the applicant and, after considering the submissions, dismissed the revision application, upholding the orders of the courts below. The court held that the tenant could not be permitted to make structural changes without following due process of law, and the interim injunction was necessary to protect the landlord's rights pending the eviction suit.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Interim Injunction - Structural Alteration - Hyderabad Rent Control Act, Sections 15 and 25 - Landlord sought to restrain tenant from making structural changes in suit premises pending eviction suit - Rent Controller allowed application based on municipal report showing fixation of shutter - District Court dismissed tenant's appeal - High Court upheld orders, holding that tenant cannot make structural changes without due process of law (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant could be restrained from making structural alterations in the suit premises pending eviction proceedings, and whether the orders of the Rent Controller and District Court were sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the orders of the Rent Controller and District Court, and restraining the tenant from causing any structural changes in the suit property without following due process of law.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- structural alteration
- tenant's rights
- landlord's rights
- Hyderabad Rent Control Act
- Section 115 CPC
- Section 15 Hyderabad Rent Control Act
- Section 25 Hyderabad Rent Control Act
