P VENKATARAMA REDDY Vs. R ASWATHNARAYANASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction of the revision petitioner / tenant passed by the Rent Controller in respect of the non-residential premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for own use and occupation by the respondent / landlord.

(2.) The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction of the respondent / tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from March 1994 at the rate of Rs.450/- p.m. It is stated that the petition shop premises was leased out to the respondent / tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- per month from August 1984, that the rent was enhanced in April 1988 from Rs. 400/- to Rs.450/- per month, that the respondent / tenant was irregular in paying the monthly rent, that the petitioner / landlord issued a registered legal notice dated 22.9.1994 to the respondent / tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate possession of the petition shop premises and also terminating the tenancy by 31.10.1994 and that a sum of Rs.3600/- was sent to the petitioner / landlord, along with reply notice dated 09.11.1994, by way of Demand Draft towards the arrears of rent. The respondent / tenant filed R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1994 on 05.12.1994 under Section 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the arrears of monthly rent as he has committed default by not paying the rent from March 1994 to January 1995. It is stated that the requirement of the petition premises by the petitioner is bonafide for his own use and occupation to carry on business. It is further stated that he hails from Vysya family and he is carrying on business in stationery, decorative items, school items, etc. in a small rental shop at SKPD Choultry Complex, Hosur. The petitioner / landlord is not owning any other premises except the petition premises and the other shop portion on the south, which has been leased to one Muniraja for running his cloth business. There is door in the east to west southern wall of the petition premises connecting the petition shop premises and the room situated to the south of it. It is also stated that the petitioner / landlord had undergone operation in his lung and a part of his lung has been removed. It is stated that since the petitioner / landlord is residing in the first floor and the petition shop is in the ground floor, the petitioner / landlord can conveniently run the business in the petition premises if he is able to secure the same.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the tenant as respondent by filing counter. It is admitted by the respondent / tenant that the rent was enhanced to Rs.450/- pm, that he is running a clinic in the petition premises and from 1984 to December 1987, the petitioner / landlord was receiving the rent from the respondent / tenant and for the payments, he was acknowledging in notebook maintained by the respondent / tenant. The petitioner / landlord used to receive the rent once in two months or three months or four months. The petitioner / landlord is doing his business in a shop in SKPD Choultry Complex, Hosur, in plastic items, etc. even before the respondent, the revision petitioner herein, became a tenant of the petition premises. Since the SKPD Choultry Complex, Hosur, is located in a very busy locality in the heart of the town very near the bazaar street and having number of business houses, the petitioner is having the shop in that place for the better scope in his business. It is admitted that there is a connecting door between the petition premises and the room to the south of it. It is also stated that adjoining the petition shop, there is another shop of the petitioner / landlord, which has been rented to one Muniraja and the petitioner / landlord can very well occupy that shop, which is of equal dimensions almost like the petition premises and the same has always been kept under lock and key, without carrying on any business. The requirement of the petition premises by the petitioner / landlord is without bonafide. It is further stated that the respondent / tenant has not committed default much less wilful default in payment of rent and he has been paying the rent regularly. It is also set out in the counter that only a common Electric Meter is there between the petition premises and the shop occupied by Muniraja and that due to the threat of disconnection, the entire electric charges for both the petition premises and the adjacent shop occupied by Muniraja, have been paid by the respondent / tenant. Therefore, the current consumption charge paid in respect of the shop occupied Muniraja have to be deducted from the rent payable by the respondent / tenant. It is further stated that the Money Orders sent towards rent from May 1994 to October 19 94 were refused by the petitioner / landlord. In fact, the respondent / tenant sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.3600/- towards rent from March 1994 to October 1994 and the same was refused to be received by the petitioner / landlord. Therefore, the respondent/ tenant filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1994 under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act and has been depositing the rent every month in the Rent Control Court. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.