SUGNIBAI ALIAS SHAKUNTALA Vs. RAFAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revisions are directed against the common judgment and decree in R.A.No.112 of 2002, R.A.No.165 of 2002 and I.A.No.1023 of 2002 in R.A.No.112 of 2002, dated: 08-11-2002 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in allowing R.A.No.112 of 2002 and I.A.No.1023 of 2002 and dismissing the Cross-Appeal in R.A.No. 165 of 2002.

(2.) The matrix of the case, in brief are as follows: The revision petitioners filed R.C.556 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(2) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 praying for eviction of the respondent/tenant viz., Rafat Ali from the petition schedule property situated at Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad and to deliver vacant possession. The petitioners contended that they are the owners and landlords of petition schedule premises situated at Mahaboobgunj and the respondent is the tenant since about 26 years. The tenancy is oral and month-to month. The rent was payable on or before 5th of every calendar month. The monthly rent for the mulgies was at Rs.250.00. R.C. No. 443 of 1988 was filed against the respondent/tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and the said petition was dismissed on 13-09-1993 and thereafter R.A.No. 484 of 1993 was also dismissed on 07-04-1997 confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Then the matter was taken to the High Court in C.R.P.No.1750 of 1997, which was allowed on 02-01 -1998 and the tenant preferred the Civil Appeal No.5777 of 1998 and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court in R.A.No. 484 of 1993. During the pendency of the R.C, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 524 of 1990 and the respondent was directed to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. The tenant failed to deposit the rent for number of years in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act and committed wilful default and thereupon the petitioners filed R.C.No. 556 of 1999. The respondent committed wilful default for 21 months in payment of rents from 01-01-1998 to 30-09-1999 and the total amount withheld is Rs.5,250.00. It was further contended that the deposit of rent should be as per statute and the deposit of rent in R.C.No. 443 of 1988 was not valid under the provisions of the Act and hence the tenant committed wilful default and consequently the petition was filed. The tenant filed counter denying the averments contained in the petition. The tenant contended that he has been depositing the rents regularly in R.C.No. 443 of 1988 at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month. The landlords were asked to furnish the bank account and since the landlords failed to inform the bank account, the rents were being deposited in the Court of Rent Controller in compliance with the earlier orders in R.C.C.No. 443 of 1988. The petitioners having failed to evict the respondents illegally by force have come up with false pleas with oblique motive. The petitioners are aware that the rent was being deposited in R.C.No. 443 of 1988 and hence the petition may be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioners/landlords filed additional pleadings by way of rejoinder. After enquiry the learned II Additional Rent Controller passed orders on 21-01-2002 allowing the petition and directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the petition mulgies within two months from the date of order. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, the tenant filed R.A.No.112 of 2002 and the landlords filed R.A.No. 165 of 2002. The appellate authority after hearing both sides allowed R.A.No.112 of 2002 and I.A.No. 1023 of 2002 and dismissed the cross-appeal in R.A.No. 165 of 2002.