HINDU COLLEGE COMMITTEE Vs. SHAIK SUBHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioners filed the said RCC for eviction of respondent contending that 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties belonging to all the institutions under its Management; the Hindu College is one institution under its management; as per the bye-laws, all the properties of the Hindu College vest in the 1st petitioner; that 1st respondent took on lease a small room in 1986 for running soda shop on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-; he paid rent only upto January 1994 and thereafter did not pay rents and committed wilful default in payment of rents; the petitioners also require the RCC schedule shop for their personal use and occupation as they wish to have clear frontage of "Eka Dandaiah Pantulu Hall" and for the parking space for the audience, by removing the RCC Schedule Shop after evicting the respondent.

(3.) The respondent initially filed a counter dated 2.2.1998 admitting that he was paying rents upto July 1997 and contending that no receipts were ever given by the petitioners to him; that rent was Rs.250/- per month; that his father served the petitioner-institution without any remuneration and expired later; that as a gesture of goodwill for the services the father of the respondent has rendered, the management of 1st petitioner permitted him to run a soda shop in the premises. The respondent denied that he is in arrears of rent and committed any wilful default in payment of rent. He also contended that the alleged requirement of the petitioner i.e. to give a face lift to "Eka Dandaiah Panthulu Hall" is not true and that the requirement is not bonafide.