Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 918 (AP)

A. Rajaiah v. K. Sitha Rama Rao

2013-10-24

G.ROHINI

body2013
ORDER This revision petition is preferred under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Rent Control Act") against the judgment dated 28.6.2013 in RA No. 396/2010 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the eviction ordered by the learned I-Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in RC No. 313/2009. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 3. As could be seen from the material available on record the respondent herein filed RC No. 313/2009 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(iii)(b) and 10C(1)(c) and (2) of the Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/respondent therein from the petition schedule premises alleging wilful default in payment of rents from 15.7.2008 till July 2009. It was also pleaded that he is aged about 67 years and requires immediate possession of the schedule Mulgi for his personal need. 4. The revision petitioner filed counter denying the allegation of wilful default in payment of rents. It was also contended that the bona fide requirement for personal occupation pleaded in the eviction petition was false and in fact the petitioner was already in possession of another Mulgi and that apart he was very old and was unable to carry on any business. 5. On the basis of the above noticed pleadings the learned Rent Controller settled the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent as prayed for? (2) Whether the petitioner is a senior citizen and requires the petition schedule premises for his personal occupation bona fidely? (3) To what relief? 6. Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner/respondent herein got himself examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 documents were marked on his behalf in evidence. On behalf of the respondent/revision petitioner, though one witness was examined as RW1, no documentary evidence was produced. 7. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller held that the allegation of wilful default in payment of the rents was not, established. However, on point No. 2 it was held that the petitioner in R.C./the respondent herein is aged more than 65 years and therefore he is entitled to claim relief under Section 10-C(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act. Thus, RC No. 313/2009 was allowed and the eviction was ordered. 8. However, on point No. 2 it was held that the petitioner in R.C./the respondent herein is aged more than 65 years and therefore he is entitled to claim relief under Section 10-C(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act. Thus, RC No. 313/2009 was allowed and the eviction was ordered. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant/revision petitioner filed RA No. 396/2010. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, the appellate Court confirmed the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 28.6.2013. Hence, the present revision petition. 9. As noticed above, there is no dispute about the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also relevant to note that though it was alleged in the eviction petition that the tenant was guilty of wilful default in payment of rents, it was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the said finding has become final. Thus, the only point that requires consideration is whether the eviction ordered by the Courts below holding that the petitioner is entitled to recover the possession under Section 10-C(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act is sustainable. 10. Section 10-C of the Rent Control Act reads as under : "Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow:-(1) Where the landlord is: (a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband; (b) a handicapped person and the premises let out by him; (c) a person who is of the age of sixty five years or more and the premises let out by him; or her; is required for use by him or her or for his or her family or for anyone ordinarily living with him or her as the case may be for use he or she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of anyone residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him." 11. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of anyone residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him." 11. A perusal of the said provision shows that the landlord is of the age of 65 years or more and the premises let out by him is required for his personal use or for the use of his family, he may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. 12. Coming to the case on hand, the fact that the petitioner in RC No. 313 of 2009/the respondent herein is aged about 67 years is not in dispute. However, the contention of the tenant/revision petitioner is that as the landlord/respondent herein is having two more Mulgies and both the Mulgies are lying vacant, he is not entitled to seek recovery of the petition schedule Mulgi claiming that it is required for his personal use. The very same contention was raised before the lower appellate Court and the same was negatived by the Court below relying upon a decision of this Court in Basanthilal v. Omprakash, 2005 (2) ALD 284 = 2005 (2) ALT 620 . 13. On a careful reading of Section 10-C of the Rent Control Act, I am unable to hold that the order of the Appellate Court suffered from any error warranting interference by this Court. 14. It is no doubt true that Section 10-C (2) provides that if the landlord has let out more than one premises he can seek possession of anyone of the said premises. Thus it refers to a situation where more than one premises is in occupation of tenants. In the instant case, it was pleaded in the eviction petition itself that the landlord is already in possession of one Mulgi, and that he needs another Mulgi to start business. Thus it is clear that it is not a case where more than one premises is let out compelling the landlord to seek recovery of only one premises. 15. In the instant case, it was pleaded in the eviction petition itself that the landlord is already in possession of one Mulgi, and that he needs another Mulgi to start business. Thus it is clear that it is not a case where more than one premises is let out compelling the landlord to seek recovery of only one premises. 15. So far as the contention of the revision petitioner that the bona fide requirement for personal use pleaded in the eviction petition is not true is concerned, a concurrent finding was recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court that the landlord requires the premises for running the business. Such concurrent finding of fact recorded on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties warrants no interference by this Court. That being so, in terms of Section 10-C(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act, the respondent herein is entitled to seek recovery of possession of the petition schedule premises and both the Courts below have rightly ordered the eviction. 16. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner is granted time for vacating and handing over the vacant possession till 31.12.2013, provided an undertaking is filed to that effect before the learned Rent Controller within one week from today. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.