SYED MOIN PASHA Vs. MADHAVI RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner/tenant preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short) assailing the orders dated 05.06.2012 of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad made in R.A. No. 121 of 2011 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judge while dismissing the appeal had confirmed the orders dated 16.03.2011 of the learned III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad made in R.C. No. 336 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act requesting the Court to permit the petitioner/tenant to deposit the monthly rents of Rs. 2,000/ - for the period from February 2008 to September 2008 @ Rs. 250/ - per month and continue to deposit the future monthly rents from October 2008 onwards to the credit of the petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner/tenant is this: - "Since 1974, the tenant/petitioner ('the petitioner' for short) is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the mulgi bearing No. 10 -1 -128/15 at Masab Tank, Hyderabad more fully described in the schedule annexed to the petition. He had taken the said mulgi from the respondent/landlady ('the respondent' for short) on lease on an initial monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. The present monthly rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent is Rs. 250/ -. While so, in the month of March 2008, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had widened the roads in the Masab Tank area, where the petition schedule property is situate. At that time the GHMC had marked 13 feet length for demolition out of 27 feet length of the petition schedule mulgi. In fact the petitioner himself wanted to demolish the marked area of 13 feet with a view to safeguard the rest of the property and so as to continue his business smoothly. However, the respondent neither came forward to demolish the affected area nor allowed the petitioner to do the same. The GHMC in collusion with the respondent had demolished the mulgi to a larger extent, which is more than the required 13 feet. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court to prevent the GHMC from dispossessing him from the schedule mulgi. Taking advantage of the demolition, the respondent is trying to create problems for the continuation of the business in 'Embroidery' being carried on by the petitioner in the place left over after demolition by the GHMC. The petitioner is regularly paying monthly rents after demolition of a part of the mulgi. The petitioner had sent the rent for the months of February 2008 to July 2008 to the respondent by a money order, but the respondent/landlady had refused to receive the said rents and the money order was returned with the endorsement 'property demolished by the GHMC'. Then the petitioner had got issued legal notice dated 14.07.2008 through his counsel calling upon the respondent to notify her bank account for the purpose of depositing the monthly rents regularly into the said account. Though the notice was served on the respondent/landlady on 17.07.2008 she did not either issue a reply or furnish the details of her bank account. Hence the petition is filed for permission to deposit the arrears of rents and future rents into the Court."

(3.) AT the time of enquiry, P.W. 1 was examined and exhibits P1 to P15 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The respondent and a supporting witness were examined as R.Ws. 1 and 2. No documents were exhibited on the side of the respondent. On merits, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition and the said orders were confirmed in the appeal by the learned Additional Chief Judge.