SATYANARAYANA Vs. MOZUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has preferred this revision against the order dated 21-1-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.123 of 2001 confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.526 of 1998, dated 31-1-2001 ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The respondent being the landlord has presented the R.C.No.526 of 1998, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner herein on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting the premises to some third party, and requiring the premises for personnal occupation.

(2.) The brief facts, that are necessary in this case are follows: The respondent herein claimed that the petition schedule premises was taken on lease by the revision petitioner from his father by executing a rental deed, dated 1-7-1978, Initially, the rent was stipulated at Rs.200.00 per month and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.250.00. It is also alleged by the respondent that his father gifted the schedule premises to him on 24-2-1989 and the petitioner was also informed of the said gift by a letter dated 1-3-1989. Thereafter, the tenant has attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent herein on the same terms and conditions in the rental deed, dated 1-7-1978. The rent is said to be payable by 10th of the same month. It is alleged by the landlord that as per the terms of the tenancy, the rent is exclusive of electricity consumption charges and property tax payable to M.C.H., and the tenant has to pay the electricity consumption charges directly to the APSEB and the property tax as levied by MCH., directly to the M.C.H., on due dates. The respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises for non-payment of property taxes covering the period from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1998. He also sought the premises for personal use on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation at his own by purchasing the property in the name of his wife Smt. Jeti Bai.

(3.) The execution of the rental deed and the rent are not disputed by the tenant who is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has contended that the property was not acquired in the name of his wife and he denied about the acquisition of residential portion on the first floor and non-residential portion on the ground floor with 3 shops. He also denied about securing alternative accommodation.