NARSING PRASAD Vs. DINESH MOHANLAL PARDHANANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008 in R.A. No.327 of 2006 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 07.11.2006 in RC No.112 of 1998 passed by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, wherein the petition filed by the revision petitioner for eviction of the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/landlord filed R.C.No.112 of 1998 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and also for bona fide personal requirement.

(3.) THE respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the father of the respondent by name Mohanlal H.Pardhanani established M/s.Hyderabad Automobiles in the year 1969 and he expired on 09.08.1995. Thereafter, the respondent has been running the said business in the said premises since then. The revision petitioner collected Rs.1500/ - from the respondent on 03.10.1997 towards rent for the months of September and October 1997 and issued a temporary receipt promising to send official stamped receipt later, but he failed to send the same. Respondent sent a letter dated 25.11.1997 requesting the revision petitioner to send official stamped receipt but the said letter was returned with an endorsement stating that 'party continuously absent for seven days'. Revision petitioner did not collect the rent for the month of November, 1997. Respondent sent the rent for the said month on 05.12.1997 by money order. It was returned on 13.12.1997. Once again, the respondent sent money order for Rs.750/ - on 15.12.1997, it was also returned on 26.12.1997. Respondent sent registered notice dated 29.12.1997 calling upon the revision petitioner to intimate his bank account details to enable him to deposit the rents for the shop. The said notice was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement "party refused". Once again respondent sent two money orders one for Rs.750/ - towards rent for the month of December, 1997, and for Rs.1500/ - for the months of January and February, 1998, the said money orders were also returned as the revision petitioner refused to receive the same. In the circumstances, respondent filed RC No.71 of 1998 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking for permission to deposit the rents into the Court while so, revision petitioner filed petition for eviction. It is also denied that the respondent did not pay rents from September, 1997. It is also stated that the petitioner is having right, title and interest in the property bearing municipal No.15 -1 -423, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. He acquired the said property during the pendency of the case demolished the old building and constructed a new building on the site of the old building consisting of three mulgies facing main road and rear side residential building. After construction of the same, he let out one mulgi to Smt. Bijal N. Shah under rental deed dated 05.12.2000 and said tenant is carrying on business in the said mulgi under the name and style of M/s.Paras Auto Springs. The said tenant vacated the said mulgi in the year 2002 and handed over vacant possession of the same to the revision petitioner. Thereafter, the revision petitioner let out the said premises to a tenant who is carrying on business in the said premises under the name and style of Patel Trading Company. In one mulgi, revision petitioner himself is carrying on business of Food grains and he kept the third mulgi vacant without any use from the date of construction. In these circumstances, the revision petitioner is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent.