P SHOBHA Vs. KOTHURI NARENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the order dated 24-3-1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in R.C.A. No.2 of 1996. Revision petitioner is the landlady who filed the petition seeking eviction of the tenant in R.C. No.17 of 1990.

(2.) It is averred inter alia in the petition that the premises bearing No.4-8-824/B was originally belonged to the petitioner's mother-in-law who later willed away the said premises in her favour. It was divided into two 'mulgies' by constructing a wall in between. The premises in question was let out to the respondent/tenant on the condition of paying a monthly rent of Rs.840/-. The respondent paid the rents at that rate till the end of March, 1993 and thereafter committed wilful default. That apart, the premises is required bona fide for doing wholesale cloth business by her husband along with adjacent premises which too was let out to another tenant.

(3.) The respondent/tenant resisted that petition mentioning inter alia in the counter that he has been running a tailoring shop therein for the last several years and that he never committed any default, much less wilful default. The husband of the petitioner used to collect the rents and sometimes he used to pay the rents by means of money order. When he sent the money orders for the months of April and May, 1992, the petitioner with an ulterior motive evaded the receipt of money orders. She did not specify the bank account into which the rents could be credited. Therefore, he filed R.C. No.19 of 1992 seeking permission of the Rent Controller to recover the rents. The husband of the petitioner who used to do cloth business in a rented premises situate in Station Road, Nizamabad, sold away the running business and, therefore, that clearly establishes that he does not wish to do cloth business at all. If really the husband of the petitioner intends to do cloth business he can as well utilize the space available over the 'mulgi' and adjacent 'mulgi' for his business without harassing the respondent.