BABU RAO K Vs. YADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-landlords aggrieved by the Judgment of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.334 of 1997 dated 28-2-2000.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The' petitioners herein are the owners of the premises bearing Door No.8-2-282 situated at Kumarguda, Secunderabad. They have purchased the above premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22-4-1994. The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The petitioners herein were residing in a rented premises bearing No.8-2-332 situated at Kumarguda, Secunderabad by paying monthly rent at Rs. 1,000.00. The 1st petitioner has two children and the 2nd petitioner is unmarried sister of the 1st petitioner and they are in requirement of the suit premises for their own occupation and that the respondent-tenant has not paid the rents from May, 1994 to November, 1995 amounting to Rs.900.00.

(3.) The respondent-tenant resisted the petition by way of filing counter denying knowledge of purchase of the suit premises by the petitioners herein. It is stated that she filed a suit in O.S. 271 of 1993 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners vendor from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises and the vendor of the petitioners had also filed a suit in O.S.No.585 of 1993 for recovery of possession of the suit premises. It is also further stated by the respondent that she had received a telegram on 7-11-1995 sent in the name of one Asutosh Jaiswal and a legal notice dated 9-11-1995 sent on behalf of the petitioners and that she has sent a reply dated 20-12-1995 asking the petitioners Counsel to show the title deeds in respect of the suit premises and to furnish the details of the petitioners' bank account so as to enable her to deposit the rents, but there was no response from him. The respondent has denied the fact that the petitioners are in bona fide requirement of the suit premises and the suit premises is not suitable for the occupation of the petitioners. It is also further stated in the counter that the respondent has paid the rents to Asutosh Jaiswal or his father one Arun Jaiswal upto October, 1995 and after receiving the telegram and notice in November, 1995 she has stopped paying the rents to the previous landlords and has issued the said reply notice. Thereafter the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 250.00 to the petitioners' Counsel on 29-3-1996 and had paid the rent of April, 1996 on 12-4-1996 and she is not a wilful defaulter.