RAJENDRAPAL SACHDEVA Vs. N AVATARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the tenant - respondent in R.C.No. 296/96 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller at Hyderabad and the respondent in R.A.No. 109/98 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, The present Revision is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the "Act" for the purpose of convenience, by the tenant as against a reversal order made by the appellate authority in R.A.Nq. 109/98 dated 13-7-2000.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent in the present C.R.P. hereinafter called the "landlady", for the purpose of convenience, had filed R.C.No. 296/96, against the Revision petitioner, hereinafter called the "tenant", for the purpose of convenience, seeking relief of eviction on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground of personal requirement. The Court of first instance, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence i.e., the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also R.W. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-3 and Exs. B-1 to B-8 had arrived at the conclusion that the landlady had not established her case for getting the relief of eviction and had dismissed the said R.C. on 30-8-1988 and aggrieved by the same, the landlady preferred R.A. No. 109/98 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad who had reversed the order passed by the Court of first instance by an order dated 18-7-2000 and aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred the present Revision.

(3.) The landlady is the owner of Garrage No. 74 at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad and it was let out on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to the tenant, excluding electricity charges and no advance was received by her and the rent of Rs. 1,000/- was agreed to be payable on or before 5th of every month and the tenant occupied the garage on 1-8-1984, but unfortunately he was a chronic defaulter and he withheld the rents from August 1984 till the filing of the R.C.C. The landlady also pleaded that whenever she had approached the tenant demanding rents, he was behaving in a rash manner and the landlady had requested him to vacate the premises since she was in need of the premises for personal requirement also and the tenant demanded Rs.50,000/- to vacate the premises and it was further stated the rents payable by the tenant for 22 months would come to Rs.22,000/-. The tenant filed a counter and resisted the same and had stated that the agreed rent is Rs. 800/- per month, exclusive of electricity charges and the rent is payable on or before 10th of every month and he deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the landlady as security, which is refundable at the time of vacating the premises and he had paid the rents regularly from 1-8-1994 onwards. But the landlady had not passed any receipts and she had refused to receive the rents from May 1996 and hence he had sent the rents by Money Order and the landlady had issued a legal notice on 1-5-1996 and a reply was given on 27-6-1996. The tenant also pleaded that in the first week of April, 1996, the landlady demanded him to enhance the rent for which he did not accept and when he tendered the rent on 5-5-1996 she had refused to receive the same and therefore he had sent the rents by Money Order. The tenant filed a suit O.S.No. 1716/96 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction and an interim order was granted in his favour. It was further pleaded that the rent for the month of May 1996 was sent through Money Order and it was received and when the rent for June 1996 was sent by Money Order, it was returned as refused. Similarly, the rents for June and July 1996 also were tendered to the Counsel representing the landlady, but they were also refused and the rent is due only for the months of June and July 1996 and thereafter as per orders in I.A.No. 342/96, he has been depositing the rents into Court and he had denied the personal requirement of the landlady also. The learned appellate authority had dealt with both the points - the ground of wilful default and also the ground of bona fide requirement, and had arrived at the conclusion that both the grounds have been established and had allowed the appeal ordering eviction of the tenant. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant in the appeal.