Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 931 (AP)

Rajaram Eshwardas Wadhawa v. Janaki Bai

2014-07-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2014
ORDER 1. The deceased-1st respondent filed R.C. No. 347 of 2003 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 21-1-651/2, Rikab Gunj, Hyderbad for the past several years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. It was pleaded that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rents and ever since 2002, he stopped payment of rents. The grounds of bona fide requirement for the sake of the deceased-1st respondent as well as acquisition of premises by the petitioner were also pleaded. The R.C. was opposed by the petitioner. He pleaded that there is no default in payment of rents and that the R.C. was filed only when he refused to enhance the rent from Rs. 800/- Rs.12,000/- per month. He has also referred to filing of R.C. No. 371 of 2003 under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1990 (for short the Act) and that the deceased-1st respondent did not receive the rents. He denied the ground of bona fide requirement. As regards the acquisition of premises, the petitioner stated that it was by a Company, of which he is a Director and not by himself. 2. During the pendency of the R.C. the 1st respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record. Through its order, dated 11.10.2011, the Additional Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed R.A. No. 250 of 2011 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 05.12.2013. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Act. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is the tenant of the respondents as regards the schedule property. The eviction was sought, on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, the acts of waste said to have been committed by the petitioner, bona fide requirement and securing of alternative accommodation by the petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller framed the following points for its consideration:- 1. Whether the respondent ahs committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from April 2002 to August 2003? 2. Whether the respondent committed acts of waste? 3. The Additional Rent Controller framed the following points for its consideration:- 1. Whether the respondent ahs committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from April 2002 to August 2003? 2. Whether the respondent committed acts of waste? 3. Whether the petitioners require petition schedule premises for the purpose of commencing business by son of the petitioner No. 2 bonafidely? 4. Whether the respondent secured alternative accommodation? 5. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were filed. The petitioner deposed as R.W.1 and he filed Exs.R.1 to R.16. On the eviction being ordered, the petitioner filed R.A. No. 250 of 2011 and the lower appellate Court framed the following point for its consideration:- Whether the tenant as appellant in R.A. No. 250/11 established substantial grounds to set aside the eviction order and to dismiss the eviction petition? 6. The appeal was dismissed. 7. On the question of wilful default in payment of rents, the Additional Rent Controller held against the respondents. It was found that the rents were being paid as per the convenience of the parties and that there was no default. The plea as to commission of the acts of waste was also held against the respondents. The question of bona fide requirement was also answered against the respondents. However, the plea as to acquisition of additional accommodation by the petitioner was answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. 8. The Additional Rent Controller discussed the matter at length with reference to the evidence on record. The petitioner admitted as R.W.1 that in M/s. Sunitha Textiles Mills Private Limited, his younger brother and his wife are the directors and he is the managing director and that the said company has acquired premises bearing Nos. 21-1-644 to 21-1-646, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad under four separate sale deeds, comprising of ground and first floors. He was evasive about the number of shops existing in those premises. He has also stated that in the said company, the Registered office is shown as the schedule premises, which are owned by him. Other properties such as 21-1-517 and 21-1-745/9 were also proved to have been purchased by or on behalf of the respondents. The sale deeds were made part of record. 9. The lower appellate Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the decided cases. Other properties such as 21-1-517 and 21-1-745/9 were also proved to have been purchased by or on behalf of the respondents. The sale deeds were made part of record. 9. The lower appellate Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the decided cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any defect or factual error in the orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller and appellate authority. Law recognises acquisition of accommodation by the tenant as a valid ground for eviction under the Act. Compared to the premises, which are under lease to the petitioner, those which were acquired by him, are larger in area and equally beneficial from the point of view of location. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 10. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Since the shifting of the business activity takes some time, eight months time from 01.08.2014 is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking within four (4) weeks from today to the effect that he shall put the respondents in possession of the schedule property. He shall also be under obligation to pay the rents. 11. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.