RAJARAM ESHWARDAS WADHAWA Vs. JANAKI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased -1st respondent filed R.C.No.347 of 2003 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of premises bearing No.21 -1 -651/2, Rikab Gunj, Hyderbad for the past several years, on a monthly rent of Rs.800/ -. It was pleaded that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rents and ever since 2002, he stopped payment of rents. The grounds of bona fide requirement for the sake of the deceased -1st respondent as well as acquisition of premises by the petitioner were also pleaded. The R.C. was opposed by the petitioner. He pleaded that there is no default in payment of rents and that the R.C. was filed only when he refused to enhance the rent from Rs.800/ - Rs.12,000/ - per month. He has also referred to filing of R.C.No.371 of 2003 under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1990 (for short the Act) and that the deceased -1st respondent did not receive the rents. He denied the ground of bona fide requirement. As regards the acquisition of premises, the petitioner stated that it was by a Company, of which he is a Director and not by himself.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the R.C., the 1st respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record. Through its order, dated 11.10.2011, the Additional Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed R.A.No.250 of 2011 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 05.12.2013. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is the tenant of the respondents as regards the schedule property. The eviction was sought, on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, the acts of waste said to have been committed by the petitioner, bona fide requirement and securing of alternative accommodation by the petitioner. The Additional Rent Controller framed the following points for its consideration: