MAHENDRA KUMAR GANDHI Vs. S RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/landlord has filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2006 in RA No. 227 of 2004 of the appellate authority under the Act-cum-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order dated 29.6.2004 in RC No. 483 of 1993 of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The said R.C. was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the 1st respondent contending that he is the owner of the R.C.C. schedule premises which was let out to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-; the tenancy was oral and rent was payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month; the 1st respondent was irregular in payment of rent and wilfully committed default in payment of rent from February 1992 to June 1992 and fell in arrears of Rs. 1000/-; after repeated demands, the arrears were paid on 25.7.1992 which were received under protest; again there was a wilful default in payment of rent for November and December 1992; a legal notice dated 18.1.1993 was issued by the petitioner in response to which 1st respondent sent insufficient amount by way of a cheque for the said two months with reply dated 25.1.1993; petitioner had issued a further reply dated 15.2.1993 denying the allegations and returned the cheque for the insufficient amount; 1st respondent intentionally and deliberately withheld the monthly rent for May and June 1993; and the 1st respondent is thus liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for May and June 1993. It was also pleaded that the petitioner bona fidely requires the premises for it's own business; the 1st respondent also kept the RC schedule premises vacant without doing any business; and he materially altered the R.C. schedule premises by removing the old existing wooden door on the front door and erecting a shutter apart from removing entire flooring and interior middle wall.

(2.) The 1st respondent filed counter denying that he committed wilful default in payment of rents and stated that from the beginning it was the practice of the petitioner personally to come and collect rents from him once in four months or once in five months and sometimes even once in a year; there was no reason for the 1st respondent to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner or to feel alarmed when the petitioner had not come for such a long time to receive the rents; the petitioner did not come to collect the rents for the months of November 1991, December 1991 and January 1992; so he sent the amount by means of money order; it was returned with an endorsement "payee not found"; he again sent rents for the period November 1991 to April 1992 on 30.4.1992 by money order which was returned on 12.5.1992; in May 1992 he again sent an amount of Rs. 100/- by money order which was returned back to him on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive it; the rent of Rs. 100/- sent by money order for the month of June 1992 was refused by petitioner on 2.7.1992; thereafter petitioner expressed his willingness to receive the rent from July 1992 on condition that 1st respondent enhanced the rent to Rs. 200/- p.m; a receipt dated 7.2.1992 for Rs. 600/- was issued representing the rents for the period November 1991 to and January 1992; a receipt dated 25.7.1992 for Rs. 1000/- was issued representing rents for the period February 1992 to June 1992; when he sought to pay the rent for July 1992 @ 200/-, the petitioner did not agree to receive the same and demanded further enhancement; when he sent Rs. 200/- towards rent for July 1992 by money order on 24.8.2012, it was refused by the petitioner on 11.9.1992; he sent Rs. 400/- towards rent for July and August 1992 which the petitioner received with an incorrect endorsement "under protest"; likewise rents for months September 1992 and October 1992 were received by the petitioner with an endorsement "under protest"; the rent for the period November 1992 to February 1993 was sent by a cheque which was encashed; rents for March and April 1993 were accepted when a cheque was sent, but money orders sent earlier were refused; rent for May 1993 when tendered by cheque dated 1.6.1993 and was refused; he sent a letter dated 11.6.1993 to the petitioner to name a bank so as to enable him to deposit the rents but the petitioner did not reply to the same after receiving it; rents for May and June 1993 sent by way of money order on 2.7.1993 were refused by petitioner; therefore he filed RC No. 420 of 1993 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking leave of the Rent Controller to deposit the rents before him; RC No. 420 of 1993 was allowed and he was depositing rents accordingly. He therefore contended that he had never committed wilful default; there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord; or of non-user of the R.C. schedule premises as alleged by the petitioner.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P14. Pending the R.C., the 1st respondent died and his sons were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4. The son of the 3rd respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and he marked Exs. R1 to R57.