VENKATESWARA ELECTRICAL STORES Vs. RAJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No. 4556 of 2002 is directed against the orders passed in R.A. No. 239 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. CRP No. 4565 of 2002 is directed against the orders passed in R.A. No. 241 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) THE facts that are required for consideration can be briefly stated as follows : The respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioners herein are tenants of the schedule premises being a non-residential building which originally belongs to Varakantham Indrasena Reddy. The landlord is said to have purchased the same on 29.7.1994. Thereupon, he presented R.C. No. 132 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and also bona fide personal requirement for carrying on business under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The same has been resisted by the tenants on the ground that there is an order obtained in R.C. No. 137 of 1094 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder the Court permitted them for depositing the rents in the bank account of the previous landlord and they have been depositing the same. They did not commit any default. It is also contended that they spent Rs. 2400/- towards repairs and Rs. 10,000/- was kept in deposit and the rent stipulated was Rs. 750/- per month. It is also contended that no notice was issued regarding the sale of the premises in favour of the present landlord. He cannot seek eviction. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default while negatived the plea of bona fide requirement. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed R.A. No. 239 of 1998 whereas tenants preferred R.A. No. 241 of 1998. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, while disposing of the both the appeals by a common judgment dated 19.8.2002 allowed R.A. No. 239 of 1998 and dismissed R.A. No. 241 of 1998 and ordered eviction of the tenants. Aggrieved by the same, these two revisions are filed by the tenants.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners mainly contends that the tenants are depositing the rents as per the orders of the Court in R.C. No. 137 of 1994 in the bank account of the previous landlord and hence they have not committed any default. It is further contended that no notice was served on the tenants. It cannot be said that the tenants have committed wilful default. Coming to the aspect of bona fide requirement, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that two mulgis have become vacant after commencement of the proceedings and they have to be taken into consideration, namely, the subsequent events and the bona fide requirement will not be there.