MOHAMMAD KHAJA Vs. MOHAMMAD SHOUKAT FAHIM AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. The tenant is the Revision Petitioner in this C.R.P. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the file of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for bona fide requirement of the premises. The landlord is the owner of the demised premises, which is having two mulgies (shops) bearing No.2-10-91/A situated at Market Road, at Mahbubnagar Town and District. The landlord having purchased the said property on 2-7-1986 from its erstwhile owner Mohd. Abdur Rahman informed the tenant about the purchase through legal notice dated 27-7-1988. The tenant on receipt of the same, got issued a reply dated 14-8-1988 but did not tender rents. On the other hand, the tenant filed R.C.C.No.6 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller, Mahbubnagar to permit him to deposit rents. It was, however dismissed after contest by order dated 10-8-1989 and the appeal filed against the dismissal order in R.C.A.No.4 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar was also dismissed by an order dated 9-3-1990. Thus, as already noticed, not only on wilful default but also on the ground of bona fide requirement, the owner filed eviction petition on the ground that he intends to start Kirana and General stores for his father who gets only Rs. 1,000/- towards his pension, which is hardly sufficient for him to maintain himself, his wife and grandsons and, therefore, he required the demised premises for his bona fide personal occupation. A counter was filed opposing the eviction petition pleading ignorance about the transfer of demised premises in favour of the landlord and also by stating that the landlord does not require the premises bona fide.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller, afterrecording the evidence of P.W.I and R.W.1 and marking Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.B-1 to B-26 and having framed the point for consideration and on appreciation of the evidence brought on record held that the eviction petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly dismissed the Eviction Petition by his order dated 21-2-1995. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred R.C.A. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Mahbubnagar and the learned Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal directing the tenant to vacate premises within 3 weeks. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred the present Revision Petition.

(3.) Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learnedcounsel representing the petitioner-tenant had contended that the order of the appellate authority reversing the well considered order of the learned Rent Controller is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel also stated that though the question of attainment of the tenancy had not been specifically raised, the non-intimation about the transfer of ownership is a relevant factor, which has to be taken into consideration while deciding the question of wilful default The learned counsel also had taken us through the pleadings of the respective parties and had pointed out that the period of wilful default was also not specifically pleaded and that the landlord by taking advantage of the situation invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The learned counsel also had contended that R.C.C.NO. 6 of 1988 which is filed to permit him to deposit rents was dismissed with an observation that the act of the respondent- landlord was not bona fide and even the fact of the appeal in R.C.A.No. 4 of 1988 being dismissed, may not be of much consequence in view of the fact that the tenant has been depositing the rents and the landlord has been receiving the same.