MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN Vs. BHAGWANDAS ASAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant against whom eviction petition in R.C.No. 600 of 1994 was filed initially by Bhagwandas Asawa and his elder son Ashok Kumar Aswa. It is noticed during pendency of rent control proceedings in R.C.No. 600 of 1994, the 1 st petitioner Bhagawandas Asawa died and his legal representatives i.e., Smt. Shanta Bai Asawa, wife, Omprakash Asawa, another son and other legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Later during pendency of rent appeal before the Rent Appellate Authority in R.A.No. 318 of 1999, which is filed by the petitioner in this revision being aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, the 2nd petitioner Ashok Kumar Asawa, son of late Bhagawandas Asawa, also died and his legal representatives were also brought on record as respondents 8 to 11 in R.A. No. 318 of 1999.

(2.) The two petitioners i.e., Bhagawandas Asawa and Ashok Kumar Asawa instituted eviction petition in R.C.No. 600 of 1994 under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule mulgi bearing Door No. 21-2-262 situated at Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. In the petition so filed, they claimed that the mulgi was given on rent to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- and the tenant used to pay rent by way of cheques and that at the time of induction the tenant also made security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- towards fixtures and furniture, which is refundable at the time of vacation of the premises. It was the case of these petitioners that the tenant paid the last rent under a cheque in the month of January, 1988 for an amount of Rs. 2100/- towards the rent for the period from January to June, 1988 and thereafter the tenant failed to pay rent in spite of several demands and thereby committed wilful default. The petitioners-landlords also claimed that neither the 1st petitioner i.e., Bhagwandas Asawa nor his son Ashok Kumar Asawa owned any other non-residential premises in the twin cities and that the petitioners want to do pulses business or readymade garments business in the petition schedule mulgi and sought eviction of the tenant for a bona fide purpose. On these two grounds the petitioners sought eviction of the tenant.

(3.) The tenant filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and further pleaded that the first petitioner collected huge advance of Rs. 10,000/-. According to the tenant, originally the rent was at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month and it was enhanced in the month of July, 1984 and at that time the fils petitioner collected extra deposit of Rs. 1500/- vide cheque bearing No. 651696 and therefore, the total amount of advance paid by him was Rs. 11,500/- and that the rent is not payable once in six months pleaded by the petitioners. The tenant denied the allegation that the petitioners have kept fixtures and furniture and that the tenant was given the mulgi after bifurcating it from the adjacent mulgi which was in possession of Basheer Bangles Stores and that the practice of receiving rent is that the authorized representative of the deceased first petitioner used to come and collect cheques and as usual a cheque bearing No. 852915, dated 27-7-1988 for Rs.2100/- for the period from 1 -7-1988 to 31 -12-1988 was got prepared and the representative of the first petitioner by name Durga Prasad came and collected it on 3-8-1988 and again he came and returned the cheque on 11-11-1988 stating that the first petitioner will personally come and collect the cheque and that since then nobody came to collect the cheque, the tenant was constrained to issue a legal notice, dated 22-12-1988 and thereupon filed R.C.No. 3 of 1989 under Section 9(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. According to the tenant the said R.C. was allowed and that he was permitted to deposit rent into the Court and thereafter he has been depositing rents into court. It was also stated in the counter that the tenant filed O.S.No. 3271 of 1989 for refund of the amount retained by the first petitioner. The tenant further contended that the elder son of the first petitioner Ashok Kumar is a real estate agent and that the petition schedule mulgi is located in the congested Lad Bazar, where only business of bangles is run and that the first petitioner is not specific regarding what sort of business he wants to do along with his son and prayed for dismissal of the rent control proceedings.