ZOHRA BEGUM Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the petitioner in these two revision petitions that arise out of the common order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, setting aside the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The premises in question are non-residential premises and are situate at Basheerbagb, Hyderabad. The premises are being used by the respondent tenant for a pboto studio, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, per shop. After the expiry of the lease period, the landlady terminated the tenancy by isssuing a notice to the tenant and she also filed two separate suits before the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking for the eviction of the tenant basing on the lease agreement. But due to change in law, both the suits were withdrawn in April, 1984 and the landlady filed the present eviction petitions before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the above petitions, an application under Section 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, was filed and the same was also closed. On a consideration of the entire material on record, the learned Principal Rent Controller found that the landlady failed to make out a case about personal requirement but on the question of dafault, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent during the pendency of the suits and ordered eviction of the tenant. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority set aside the said finding on the question of default holding that non-payment of rent alleged to have been found by the Rent Controller cannot be treated as a default much less a wilful default and dismissed the eviction petition. Hence these two revision petitions.

(3.) The admitted facts are that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. After the expiry of the lease period, the landlady terminated the tenancy and filed civil suits and also claimed damages. Due to change in law, she has withdrawn the suits and filed the present eviction petitions.