SYED HABEEBUDDIN Vs. MOHAMMED FAREED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed by the landlord as against the judgment in RA No.119/95 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order in RC No.l12/ 92 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The 1st respondent in the revision is the tenant and it is alleged that the 2nd respondent is the sub-tenant, but however, the relationship between the 1st and the 2nd respondents is that they are brothers. The landlord filed the eviction petition under Sections 10(2)(i)(a), 10(3)(iiXa) and 10(3)(iii)(a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "Act" in short. The revision petitioner-landlord had averred that he is the absolute owner of the mulgi bearing No.11-2-926, Habibnagar, Hyderabad and the 1st respondent is the tenant and it is alleged that the 2nd respondent was inducted into possession as a subtenant and after coming to know the landlord asked the 2nd respondent to vacate to premises and hence the landlord refused to accept the rents tendered by the 2nd respondent from the month of September, 1991 and suppressing all these facts the 2nd respondent got issued a notice and the landlord gave a suitable reply and having received the reply notice, the 2nd respondent had not taken any action and hence the eviction petition was filed on the grounds of wilful default from September, 1991 to February, 1992, sub-letting and also bona fide requirement. The respondents had taken a stand that the 1st respondent had obtained the demised premises about 30 years ago for carrying on business and the present rent is Rs.200/-, exclusive of the electricity charges and the 1st respondent had never committed wilful default from the beginning and he has been paying the rents regularly up to August, 1991 and receipts also were passed and though the rent was tendered as usual in the month of September, 1991 on 10-9-1991, the landlord refused to receive the same and likewise the landlord failed to receive the rent form October, 1991 also when it was tendered by the 2nd respondent and hence the rents were sent through money order which also were refused. It was also averred that the 1st respondent had gone to see his relations residing in Gulf countries and he had left the country for the purpose of Haj pilgrimage and unfortunately he had sustained fracture in the house of his relatives and could not return to India for a long time and during his absence the 2nd respondent, being his brother, was looking after the business as per his instructions and it is totally false to state that he had committed wilful default and he had sub-let the premises. Unfortunately the landlord did not specify even the name of the bank to deposit the rents and hence the 1st respondent after complying with all the requirements under Section 8 of the Act had filed RC No.326/92 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller and after obtaining permission from the Court all the arrears commencing from 1-9-1991 have been deposited in Court. It was also averred that the 1st respondent had appointed 2nd respondent as his General Power of Attorney and on the strength of the same the 2nd respondent was safeguarding the interests of the 1st respondent and in fact RC No.326/92 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller was filed by the 2nd respondent in the interest GPA of the 1st respondent and previously also there was some problem and to maintain good relationship with the landlord the 1st respondent had enhanced some rent and started paying the rents regularly and hence the eviction petition is not a bona fide one. On behalf of the landlord, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Pl to P4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Rl to R4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller had discussed the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting as Point Nos.l and 2 and had arrived at a conclusion that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are liable to be evicted on these grounds. However, as far as Point No.3 i.e., bonafide requirement is concerned, it was not accepted and the respondents aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Rent Controller had preferred RA No. 119/ 95 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad which was allowed on 27-12-1999 and aggrieved by the said judgment the landlord had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "landlord", "tenant" and "2nd respondent".