LAWS(APH)-2005-3-50

POLISETTY VENKATESWARLU Vs. ATMAKURI MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Decided On March 25, 2005
POLISETTY VENKATESWARLU Appellant
V/S
ATMAKURI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner herein who is the landlord, seeks to assail the judgment, dated 20-8-2003, passed in R.C.A. No.3 of 1999, on the file of the Court of Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur), allowing the R.C.A., by setting aside the order dated 18-1-1999 in R.C.C. No.55/93 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C.C. filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 10 (2) (i) and (iii), 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) and (c) of the Act, and ordered eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises on the ground of personal requirement.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.3-11-9/5, situated at Main Road, Pattabhipuram, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as the petition schedule premises). The petitioner let out the schedule premises to the respondent in 1981 for a monthly rent of Rs.275/-, payable before the 5th of every succeeding month, and subsequently, from March 1993, the rental amount was enhanced to Rs.425/- per month. It is the case of the petitipner that the respondent-tenant has committed default in paying the rents for the months of August, September, and October 1993 in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that he is running Kirana Business, fancy stores, Hardware, Electrical goods and paints business etc., in the non-residential premises which is located adjacent to the petition schedule premises and since the said premises is not sufficient for his business, he is in requirement of the petition schedule premises.

(3.) The respondent-tenant filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that he has been regular in paying the rents of the schedule premises but the petitioner- landlord did not issue receipts promptly. It is further stated that he tendered the rent of August, September and October 1993, but the petitioner refused to receive the same ana demanded to enhance the rent at Rs.600/- per month. It is his further case that the petitioner also refused to receive the rents for the said three months, sent through Money Order. Thereafter, the respondent had got issued a notice dated 22-11-1993 calling upon the petitionerto furnish the details of his bank account so as to enable him to deposit the rents and he also sent a cheque for Rs. 1,275/- towards rent for the said three months. It is further case of the respondent that the petitioner has three shops situated towards the North of the petition schedule premises and he owns five shops near S.V.N. Colony and 11 portions in Brodipet, Guntur. Therefore, requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner is not bona fide and is only for the purpose of extracting enhanced rents.