JAHABDURUNNISA BEGUM Vs. S BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the CRPs are filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad passed in RA No. 380 of 1993 dated 23-8-1996, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this Common order. Under the orders impugned, the learned Additional Chief Judge set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 5-7-1983 made in RC No. 1191 of 1988 and dismissed the said RC and the cross objections in IA No. 1722 of 1993 filed by the petitioners-landladies.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the landladies and the respondents herein is the tenant.

(3.) The petitioners filed RC No. 1191 of 1988 under Section 10(2) (i)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(a and b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') seeking eviction of the respondent and to deliver vacant possession of the premises bearing Municipal No. 3-5-784/A/2, King Kothi, Hyderabad, alleging that they purchased the petition schedule premises from one Mujeeb Yar Jung Bahadur under two registered sale deeds dated 18-2-1988 for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs and the said premises was let out by their vendor to the respondent-tenant on 5-12-1982 under a rental agreement for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs. 550.00excluding other charges. The terms of the rental agreement are that the respondent should not change the name of the business or make additions or alterations in the building or sublet to anybody without the consent of the landlord and that the tenant is liable and responsible to pay the property tax for the leased out premises. It is alleged that after purchase of the said property, the 1st petitioner received a letter along with a Draft for Rs. 550.00 from the respondent-tenant informing that he came to know that the property was sold to the 1st petitioner only. For that the petitioners sent a reply to the respondent informing that the property was purchased by both the petitioners, but not by the 1st petitioner alone. It is further alleged that after obtaining lease from the vendor of the petitioners, the respondent changed the name of the business concern on the first occasion as "Sheela Automobiles" by obtaining the permission to that effect from the previous owner and again changed the name of the business as 'Krishna Motors' for the second time, without the consent of the petitioners-landladies. Therefore, in view of the above breach of the terms of the agreement, the petitioners-landladies informed the respondent that the tenancy was terminated and he was asked to vacate the premises by 30-4-1988. The respondent instead of vacating the premises filed OS No. 1787 of 1988 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with false allegations and obtained ex parte interim injunction restraining the 1st petitioner and her Vendor viz., Mujeeb Yar Jung Bahadur from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule premises. It is also alleged that the 1st petitioner is having a Beauty Parlour and the 2nd petitioner is having a Medical Shop 50 yards away from the petition schedule premises and that they wanted to run their commercial establishment in the petition schedule premises for their better advantage and therefore, they required the petition schedule premises for their bona fide requirement. It is further alleged that as per the terms of the rental agreement, the respondent has to pay the Municipal taxes regularly to the Municipality, but the respondent did not pay the taxes in respect of the property from 1983 onwards and the respondent only after coming to know that the property was purchased by the petitioners, paid the taxes in October, 1988 for the period from 1982, 1983 to 1986-87 and it is also alleged that the respondent sub-let the premises without their consent. Therefore, they filed the above RC seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, subletting of the premises by the respondent to others without their consent, changing the nature of the business concern and also for default in payment of Municipal Taxes regularly to the Municipality.