JALAL AND SONS Vs. SITA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this tenant's revision under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the first petitioner is the proprietary concern and the second petitioner is proprietor of the first petitioner (hereinafter compendiously called as 'tenant'). The tenant is aggrieved by the order of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dt. 24-3-2000 in R.A.No. 47 of 1995, confirming the eviction order passed by the Court of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C.No. 1084 of 1986 dt. 31-12-1994. The order of the appellate authority is impugned on the ground that the same is vitiated by irregularity and illegality. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Rent Control Case. --

(2.) The tenant is running business in the name and style of M/s. Jalal & Sons. The tenant was inducted in 1938. The tenant runs a watch repair and sales shop in suit mulgi bearing premises No. 5-8-543. The shop admeasures 15' x 60' and is situated in busy commercial area of Hyderabad, known as Abid Road. Originally, lease was obtained by late Syed Jalaluddin, the father of the present proprietor from late Sri G. Ramachar Joshi, who is the husband of Sita Bai, who succeeded to the property after the death of Ramachar Joshi. Be that as it may, Sita Bai and her adopted son, Madhavacharya Joshi (hereafter called 'the landlords') filed R.C.No. 1084 of 1986 on 31-1-1985 seeking eviction of the tenant on two grounds; that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the tenant is guilty of acts of waste and damage. In March, 1987 the landlords filed an application being I.A.No. 188 of 1987 for amending the rent control petition. By the amendment they raised two additional grounds; that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1985 till February, 1987 and that the premises in question is required for carrying on business in readymade garments and hosiery by Anand Joshi, who is the grandson of Sita Bai and son of Madhavacharya Joshi. The tenant opposed this application inter alia denying the necessity for such amendment and also denying the allegation that the premises is required for personal occupation of landlords for the business of Anand Joshi. The amendment was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and paragraphs 6(a) and 7(a) were added in the original petition. On 23-8-1988 Sita Bai died. Therefore, Madhavacarya Joshi, who is the second petitioner in the Rent Control Case filed I.A-No. 704 of 1988 under Section 24 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (hereafter called 'the Rules') praying for leave to amend and add Anand Joshi and Pranesh Joshi, the two sons of Madhavacharya Joshi, as petitioners 3 and 4 in the main eviction case. The basis for such prayer is a Will alleged to have been executed by Sita Bai on 2-10-1987 bequeathing the premises to Anand Joshi and Pranesh Joshi. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application I.A.No. 704 of 1988 as no counter was filed, and, therefore, both the sons of Madhavacharya Joshi were added as petitioners 3 and 4 in the Rent Control Case. The tenant filed additional counter on 12-12-1988 stating that petitioners 3 and 4 are not legal representatives of Sita Bai and that they are wrongly impleaded in the petition.

(3.) The landlords filed another interlocutory application being I.A.No. 153 of 1991 seeking amendment of the petition by adding one more ground to the effect that the suit premises is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction under Section 12 of the Act. This application was rejected. Therefore, the landlords filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the appellate authority who by order dated 23-12-1991 allowed the amendment. After unsuccessful attempt in C.R.P.No. 621 of 1992, which was dismissed by this Court on 26-2-1993, the tenant filed a Special Leave Petition, being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5975 of 1992 against order in C.R.P.No. 621 of 1992 and the S.L.P. was dismissed on 3-8-1993. The amendment was therefore carried by adding paragraph 7(b) in the rent control petition. The tenant filed additional counter on 13-9-1993 inter alia contending that the suit premises is in good condition and the requirement by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. The additional counter filed on 13-9-1993 traverses the allegations made in paragraph 7(b) only of the rent control petition.