LINGA SITARAMULU DIED Vs. K NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the original landlord who had filed the RC. The respondent is the tenant.

(2.) One Linga Seetaramulu, the original landlord filed RC No.38/89 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the respondent-tenant seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default, bona fide requirement and also sub-letting and the learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of PW1, the landlord and also RW1, the tenant, and after perusing Exs.Al and A2 and after appreciating the evidence of PW1 and RW1, had arrived at the conclusion that the landlord is entitled for the relief of eviction. The tenant, aggrieved by the same, had preferred R.A.No.647/94 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad and during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The appellate authority had reversed the order of the Court of first instance by an order dated 30-7-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the landlord had preferred the present civil revision petition under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960,

(3.) The pleadings of the respective parties in brief are as follows:- The petitioner is the landlord of the mulgi bearing No.5-5-1037, situate at Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. That the father of the respondent is the tenant and after his demise the respondent is continuing the tenancy being his legal representative. According to the landlord the rent is Rs.150/- per month and they committed wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1988 onwards. Inspite of repeated demands the respondent failed to pay rents and she is liable for eviction. The petitioner got issued notice dated 8-12-1988 and the respondent gave reply notice together with bank draft for Rs.450/- representing the rents from September to October, 1988. The other ground that was urged by the landlord is that he is intending to start his own business in the petition mulgi and his children were grown up and they are unemployed and they shall be fixed up some business as they are not highly educated and he has got sufficient funds to start the business in the disputed premises. Hence the requirement of the petition premises for his business is a bona fide one and thus sought eviction. The respondent resisted the petition contending inter alia denying the allegations made in the petition. According to the respondent originally the petition schedule premises was obtained on rent of Rs.150/- per month by the respondent husband. After his death she has been continuing as a tenant and running a barber shop with the help of her employee who was alone in service during the lifetime of her husband and she never sublet the petition premises to anybody. There is no wilful default in payment of rents. There is no genuine need of the personal requirement of the petitioner and the said ground is invented by the petitioner in order to evict her from the petition premises.