P M S MUHAMMAD SUHAIL Vs. SUBRAMANYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful landlord before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in getting an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and own use and occupation.

(2.) The revision petitioner/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction against the respondent/tenant in respect of the petition premises bearing door Nos.20 and 20A, Arampalli Street, Kayalpatnam stating that he is the owner of the petition premises and also adjacent shop bearing door No.19 managed by his paternal uncle M.S. Sheik Shamsudeen, who brought him up, and his paternal uncle as his guardian was collecting the rent. The res pondent herein is the tenant in respect of the petition premies on a monthly rent of Rs.110/- and since he defaulted in payment of rent from September, 1988 to February, 1989, a letter was sent by his uncle by registered post to the respondent herein to pay the arrears of rent from September, 1988 to February, 1989 in the Bank of Madura Ltd., Kayalpatnam in the account of C/D No.153 within three days and further requested him to pay the future rental amount in the said account on or before 5th of every English calendar month and in case of default, he will be liable for eviction. On receipt of the said letter, the respondent herein paid the arrears on 27.3.1989 and also informed the revision petitioner's uncle at Madras. Even thereafter, the respondent herein has committed default in payment of rent from March, 1989 to December, 1989 which amounts to wilful default. The respondent herein was also put on notice on 9.1.1990 setting out the facts and his supine indifference in payment of rent and requesting the respondent herein to hand over vacant possession on 1.2.1990 and that the petition premises is also required for his personal occupation as he has no house of his own. The respondent herein replied on 12.1.1990 requesting the revision petitioner to receive the arrears by issuing a receipt or otherwise he will deposit in the bank as before. The respondent herein also converted the premises bearing door No.20A as a residential portion without the permission of the revision petitioner. The respondent herein was also informed to pay the rental amount in the bank account mentioned above. The revision petitioner came to know from the bank about the non-payment of rent from March, 1989 till December, 1989. The petition premises bearing door Nos.20 and 20A are bona fide required for effecting necessary alterations for residential purposes of the landlord and since he also intends to start a business in building door No.19 in respect of which also he has filed a petition for eviction.

(3.) The petition was resisted in the counter admitting the quantum of rent at Rs.110/- per month. It is further stated that since the revision petitioner refused to receive the rental amount of Rs.100/- on 5.7.1985 and also the amount sent by money order, the revision petitioner's agent collected the rental amount in lump-sum, viz., Rs.1,200 /- on 26.1.1986, Rs.1,200/- on 31.3.1986 and Rs.400/- on 1.4.1987 and the agent of the revision petitioner was in the habit of collecting the rent in lump-sum. Even on earlier occasions the sum of Rs.125/- was collected towards the rent for the months of August to December, 1970 by the revision petitioner's agent in respect of the petition premises bearing door No.20 and the sum of Rs.50/- was collected towards the rent for the months of August to December, 1970 in respect of the petition premises bearing door No.20A. The revision petitioner was collecting the rental amount in lump-sum till a notice was caused in the year 1989. As per reply letter dated 27.3.1989, the rent for the months of September, 1988 to March, 1989, viz., Rs.770/- was deposited in the bank account of the revision petitioner. The rent for the months of April to December, 1989 was also deposited in the bank account of the revision petitioner also informed in the notice dated 12.1.1990. The requirement of the petition premises sought for residential purpose is without bona fide. Even the revision petitioner gets married, as per the custom in Kayalpatnam, the revision petitioner is to reside only in the house that will be given to him by his in-laws.