N G SHAH Vs. T N MOHAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner who filed the Civil Revision Petition assailing the order dated 28-07-2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 254 of 1996. The respondent landlord filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant in R.C.No. 199 of 1995,

(2.) It is expedient to refer the parties as they were originally arrayed to avoid confusion.

(3.) The facts lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. 8569 popularly known as "Natesan Compound". The respondent is a tenant in a portion thereof comprising of one mulgi on the condition of paying a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00 doing hardware business in the name and style of M/s. Asiatic Hardware. However, he is highly irregular in payment of rent. He committed default from December 1994 onwards, which is wilful and deliberate. He has further undertaken alterations to the premises without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner by replacing the wooden door with the rolling shutters and by making internal alterations. He obtained a three-phase electricity connection to the premises without the knowledge of the petitioner. That apart, the son of the petitioner by name T.N. Basant Kumar has been carrying on business as interior decorator having the office at his residence only. The petitioner's son intends to open his office in the petition scheduled premises. Since he has no other commercial premises of their own within the twin cities, the petitioner bona fide requires the petition scheduled premises for his son's business.