KARRI KRISHNAVENI Vs. BATCHU NOOKARAJU REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition by the landlady, is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.NO. 7 of 1998, dated 25-9-2000 on the file of the Rent Control Authority-cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, reversing the judgment and decree passed in R.C.C.NO. 32 of 1991, dated 9-2-1998 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

(2.) The petitioner-landlady is the owner of the house bearing D.No. 20-13-6, Mosque Street, Kakinada and the respondent herein is the tenant in one of the shops, carrying radio repair business paying rent of Rs.145/- per month. It is the case of the landlady that monthly rent is Rs. 145.00, but the respondent agreed for the enhancement of rent to Rs. 450.00 per month from 1-7-1991. It is her case that in spite of agreement of rent at Rs. 450.00 per month from 1-7-1991, the respondent-tenant did not pay the enhanced rent at Rs. 450.00 per month, as such it amounts to wilful default in payment of rent from 1-7-1991 onwards. It is her case that since the tenant has defaulted in payment rent wilfully, she sought eviction of the premises. Apart from the said ground, she also sought eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule premises on the ground that she bona fidely requires the premises to start cloth business. As much as her husband retired from service, they want to start business in the suit schedule premises and therefore the petitioner- landlady sought eviction of the respondent- tenant from the suit schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement also.

(3.) The respondent-tenant resisted the eviction petition stating that rent was only Rs. 145/- per month and he voluntarily increased it to Rs. 200.00 from 1-7-1991 and he has paid the said amount without any default and disputed the alleged agreement pleaded by the petitioner for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 450.00 per month. It is the case of the respondent-tenant that the petitioner-landlady does not require the premises bona fidely and that similar ground was raised in the earlier eviction petition RCC.No. 83 of 1981 and the same was negatived by the Rent Controller. It is pleaded by the respondent-tenant that the alleged bona fide requirement of the premises for starting business by her husband is only a ground invented so as to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule premises and there are no bona fides in the plea of the petitioner. It is further stated that the other shops in the same building premises have fallen vacant and they are equally suitable for starting business and they were leased out for higher rents whenever they were vacated. Subsequent to the filing of the counter, additional ground was raised which was allowed as per order in I.A. No. 4689 of 1997, dated 12-11-1997. Further it is pleaded that another adjacent shop was already vacated after filing eviction petition and the said shop was utilized by the petitioner for the alleged business of textile and they have already started the said business in the said shop in the name and style of Sri Balaji Textiles.