RAMCHANDRA S O VASUDEO PATANKAR Vs. MANDAKINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANDAKINI w/o. Purshottam Tapaswi leased out a premises situated on Municipal Plot No. 5-25-75 at Tilak Path, Aurangabad, to the petitioner Ramchandra s/o. Vasudeo Patankar on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. Petitioner Ramchandra had advanced Rs. 10,000/- for some construction on the said premises and it was accordingly constructed. An application was moved by the landlady under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "hyderabad Rent Act" for the purpose of brevity) before the Rent Controller at Aurangabad for eviction of the petitioner--tenant on the ground that tenant has committed default in the payment of rent, landlady requires the suit premises for expansion of her business titled as Tapaswi Travels and on the ground that tenant had claimed permanent tenancy. Landlady had issued two notices on 19th October, 1985 and on 8th February, 1986 terminating the tenancy and the tenant had replied said notices on 27th February, 1986 in which he had denied having committed the default in the payment of rent and also the fact that the premises is required reasonably and bona fide by the landlady. It was further contended in the said reply:---

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the learned Rent Controller had framed seven issues and twice it was submitted by the defendant--tenant that some more issues are necessary. As many as 41 issues were suggested by the defendant--tenant. Since this application was rejected, in a challenge before the District Judge, Aurangabad, in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 1988, learned District Judge directed the Rent Controller to decide the matter on the basis of issues already framed and also considering the issues as suggested by the defendant in his application. Thereafter, learned Rent Controller fixed the matter for evidence on 4th November, 1988. Again this order was challenged in Rent Appeal No. 56 of 1988 by the tenant. The learned District Judge took the view that Rent Controller has not committed any error in directing the parties to lead evidence and the trial Court was given a discretion to consider the issues suggested by the parties and that can be exercised even while passing the judgment in the case. The learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal and directed the Rent Controller to decide the case giving priority and taking the day-to-day hearing. He was further directed to dispose of the case on or before 28th February, 1989. This appellate order was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 217 of 1989. This Court was pleased to observe that there is no substance in the revision application. However, the judgment of this Court records that the learned Counsel on behalf of the landlady consented to the additional issues also. The revision was disposed of with a direction that the learned Rent Controller shall decide the matter within a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad, and the Additional Rent Controller was pleased to record findings that plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant-tenant is a wilful defaulter and the suit premises is not required for personal use of the landlady for expansion of the business. He was also pleased to record a finding that the plaintiff will not be put to a greater hardship than the defendant if the eviction petition is dismissed. He did not consider the effect of the pleadings regarding permanent tenancy and was pleased to reject the application for eviction vide his order dated 18th April, 1990 in File No. 86 of ARC/68.

(3.) THIS order came to be challenged in Rent Appeal No. 24 of 1990 filed by the landlady Mandakini and the learned District Judge was pleased to confirm the finding recorded in respect of the default in the payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the landlady. However, he found that the landlady is entitled to evict the defendant-tenant on the ground that the later has claimed the right of permanent tenancy in respect of the said premises and the claim is not bona fide. This order of the learned District Judge, Aurangabad, dated 18th April, 1991 has been challenged in this revision application under section 26 of the Hyderabad Rent Act.