MEER MUSTAFA ALI Vs. SYED AFSAR ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is a tenant under the petitioners in respect of a mulgi which was leased out to him under a lease deed dated 01 -01 -1980. In the said mulgi, he was running a tea stall and a pan shop. Initially, the rent was Rs.300/ - per month. As on the date of filing of the R.C., the rent was Rs.850/ - per month. The petitioners filed the R.C., under Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(iv) and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act, for short) seeking eviction of the respondent from the schedule premises. The eviction was sought on the grounds viz., that the respondent was committing acts of waste, causing nuisance and disturbance to the inhabitants of the other mulgies and that he has been keeping the shop till late night by playing music in a loud voice. The other ground is that the mulgi leased out to the respondent and the remaining mulgies, which were leased out to some other tenants, were constructed long ago, that the buildings in the vicinity have much demand for demolition and that the petitioners intend to develop the property by constructing a complex in the place of existing mulgies. As the respondent did not vacate the premises inspite of the bona fide requirement of the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner got issued a notice dated 17 -02 -2001 terminating the tenancy by the end of March, 2001 asking the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises on 01 -4 -2001. The respondent sent reply dated 06 -3 -2001 stating that the requirement is not bona fide and that he is not liable to vacate the premises. On that, the petitioner filed R.C.No.158 of 2001 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) In the counter, the respondent contended in the R.C., as follows: He did not commit any acts of waste, did not cause any nuisance or inconvenience to the occupants of the other mulgies in the neighbourhood of the demised premises. He also denied the alleged acts of waste mentioned in the R.C. He submitted that the mulgies are not very old requiring demolition. They do not require any major construction and that the petitioners wanted to evict the respondent on the false ground of development of the property. The requirement is not bona fide and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After the death of the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner, who is said to be her fostered daughter, came on record as his legal representative. She claims to be the owner under an oral gift dated 27 -4 -2001 and also a Memorandum of Gift Deed dated 26 -5 -2001 which was executed by the 1st petitioner in her favour. After the death of the 1st petitioner, by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 07 -6 -2003 the 2nd petitioner claims to have become the owner of the premises. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner received the rents up to February, 2014 and he expired on 13 -3 -2014. It is the version of the respondent that during the life time of the 1st petitioner, he never directed the respondent to pay rents to the 2nd petitioner.