K D KRISHNA Vs. P VENKAT RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed R.C. No.638 of 1994 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking the relief of eviction alleging that the tenant had committed wilful default and also on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of carrying on his cloth business.

(2.) The jural relationship of landlord and tenant and also the quantum of rent originally at Rs.170/- per month and enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing eviction petition Rs.225.50 ps are not in dispute. The respondent in the C.R.P., the tenant, filed R.C.No.11 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for deposit of rents and the landlord had received arrears of rents amounting to Rs.4059/- under protest without prejudice to his rights. The evidence of PW1 and RW1 was recorded by the Rent Controller and Exs.A1 to A17 and Exs.Bl to B19 were marked and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the RC 638 of 1994 by order dated 17.12.1996 and aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred R.A.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad which was also dismissed by order dated 5.6.2000 and the landlord aggrieved by the same had preferred the present C.R.P.

(3.) Sri A. Bitchaiah, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-landlord had taken me to the relevant portions of the impugned order and also the order of the learned Rent Controller and had contended that both the Courts have totally erred in arriving at a conclusion that the tenant had not committed wilful default in the light of the fact that an amount of Rs.14,000/- of the tenant is lying with the landlord and even otherwise, it is a different transaction and it will not enure to the benefit of the tenant at any rate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also had pointed out that the appellate authority had totally erred while deciding the ground of bonafide requirement stating that the landlord is not financially sound for the purpose of carrying of his business and this finding is an irrelevant and unsustainable finding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that it is the will of the landlord to decide about the suitability or otherwise of the premises and when the landlord intends to commence his own cloth business in the mulgi, the Courts below had totally erred in negativing the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on (1986) 5 SCC 353, 2000 AIR SCW 66, AIR 1963 SC 698 and also 1989 (4) ALT 642. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also contended that though both the Courts below have held against the landlord, the revision Court can definitely re-appreciate the evidence to the limited extent of seeing whether the findings are recorded in accordance with law.