PADMA BAI Vs. HEMANTH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful landlady and her son as against a reversing Judgment in RA.No.32/94 dated 23-7-1999 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners filed RC No.263/ 86 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the months of January and February, 1986 as per the terms of the lease deed dated 1-1-1983 and also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and subsequently IA No.780/90 the eviction petition was amended by adding paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) seeking the eviction of tenant on two more grounds i.e., sub-letting and acquiring alternative accommodation.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioners-petitioners in RC No.263/86 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No.4-4-72 at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and the respondent is their tenant. The tenancy is monthly tenancy borne out by a lease deed executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioners dated 1-1-1983. The said lease deed is for a period of eleven months. The rent agreed is to be paid by the respondent to the petitioners is Rs.650/- inclusive of Municipal taxes, rent for amenities such as electrical fittings and other facilities, as agreed to between the parties. The split up value of the rent payable per month is given in Schedule i! to the said lease deed. A Xerox copy of the lease deed is filed herewith. The rent is payable in advance every month on or before 5th of every month by cheque or DD regularly. The said terms and conditions of the lease deed are binding on the respondent. The respondent is irregular in payment of rents and failed to pay the rents for the months of January and February 1986 though he was directed to pay the same by the petitioners. Thus the respondent has failed to observe the terms and conditions of the lease deed of paying the rents in advance for the month and thus becoming a wilful defaulter of rents. The respondent is, therefore, liable to be evicted as a wilful defaulter having failed to pay the rents in terms of the rental agreement, in advance, on or before 5th ofthe month. The petitioner No.2 who is the son of the petitioner No.1 requires the said premises to carry on his own business and for that purpose, called upon the respondent to handover vacant possession of the premises by 1-3-1986. The respondent received the said notice of demand issued on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation to carry on their own business, but the' respondent has failed to comply with the demand made therein. The respondent has neither acknowledged receipt of the notice nor has handed over vacant possession of the premises despite the fact that the respondent is not entitled to be in occupation of the premises after the expiry of the lease by 31-12-1986. The petitioners seek eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal requirement also and pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition for the same. The personal requirement of the petitioner No.2 is bona fide, genuine and the petitioner No.2 has no other vocation or business of his and therefore the premises is required bona fide for personal occupation. The respondent is in occupation of the demised premises as a tenant thereof. However, it is noticed since last more than six months that the respondent is never available in the shop. The third person by name Sri Balram is sitting in the shop and is carrying on the day to day business. On enquiries, the petitioners have reliably learnt the respondent has parted with the possession of the premises in favour of the said Sri Balram and has in effect sub-let the same. The respondent is receiving huge premium from the said Sri Balram. Thus the respondent is liable to be evicted on this ground also. The respondent has not obtained any permission from the petitioners to sublet the premises or any portion thereof. On enquires made by the petitioners, they have learnt that the respondent has stopped carrying on the business in the demised premises in view of he having obtained alternative accommodation. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the respondent is carrying on business in the same line elsewhere under the name and style of (1) M/s. Shandar Footwear at Abids Circle, Hyderabad and (2) M/s. Sangam Footwear at M.G. Road, Secunderabad. Thus the respondent having obtained alternative accommodation is not entitled to continue in possession of the demised premises. The respondent is hereby called upon to produce the original documents in respect of the business carried in the said premises. It is therefore submitted that the respondent is liable to be evicted on this ground also.

(3.) The respondent had filed a counter denying all the allegations. It was pleaded that the demised premises has been in his occupation since 1967 and he has been carrying on business of foot wear which is the sole source of income for him and his family members and he had tendered the rents for the months of January and February, 1986 at the rate to Rs.650/- per month, but Padma Bai, the landlady, demanded him to enhance the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month and that he had refused to enhance the rent and the landlady also refused to receive the rent and thereafter he remitted the rents by money order for three months i.e., January, February and March, 1986 amounting to Rs.1,950/-, but the money order was refused and thereafter a demand draft dated 10-3-1986 for Rs.1,950/- was also refused. It was also pleaded that time and again the rents were enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.650/- in between 1967 and 1987 and the eviction petition is thought of only with a view to enhance the rent further. The bona fide personal requirement also was specifically denied.