KAMALA BAI MARDA Vs. R V RAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by landlord aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small CausesCourt, Hyderabad, dated 24-7-1989 in R.A.No.22 of 1985 allowing the appeal and dismissing the landlord's eviction petition filed in R.C.No.288 of 1979, dated 21-3-1985 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad filed under Sec. 10 (2) (i) and (iii) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short 'the Act').

(2.) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are as follows:- The petitioners have purchased House bearing No.4-7-321 situated at Esamiya Bazar, Hyderabad from its earlier owner Madanagopal Rathl under a registered Sale Deed, dated 3-7-1979. The Respondent No.1 herein Sri P. Venkata Rajaiah was a tenant earlier under Madangopal and later, by virtue of sale in favour of the petitioners herein, tenancy was attorned. The house consists of three rooms and one kitchen and the rent was Rs.90/-. Pursuant to the attorney, the Respondent No.l became the tenant under the petitioners. Tenant has agreed to pay the rents every month regularly on or before the fifth day of each month. Tenant has paid Rs.180/- towards rent for the scheduled premises for the months of July and August, 1979 on 28-9-1979 through a bank draft and subsequently, on 25-10-1979, the 1st respondentsentmoney order for Rs.90/- towards the rent for the month of September, 1979. In spite of the repeated oral demands made by the husband of Petitioner No.2, the Respondent No.l did not pay the rents regularly. The petitioners have purchased the scheduled premises with sole intention to occupy the same for their residential purposes and that all the relatives of the petitioners are residing nearby the scheduled premises, whereas the area where the petitioners are residing consists of Muslim Community people and the said house, where they are now residing is a rented one. The petitioners do not have any other house except the scheduled premises and they require the same for their occupation.

(3.) The Respondents filed their counter denying the claim of the Petitioners. It is denied that the petitioners are the owners of the scheduled premises and according to them, they are only mortgagors. The so called sale transaction is a 'benami' one. It is also denied that they are defaulters in paying rents to the scheduled premises and it is also denied that the petitioners require the scheduled premises for their personal use and occupation. According to them, the place where the petitioners are residing is quite convenient and the said area is not prone for communal disturbances. After filing counter, Sri Venkata Rajaiah, 1st respondent herein died and in his place, his legal representatives viz., his wife and sons were brought on record. An additional petition was filed by the legal representatives of late Sri Venkata Rajaiah to the effect that they are entitled to continue in possession of the scheduled premises. Further, one of the legal representatives of Late Sri Venkata Rajaiah viz., his son is serving in defence, which is an essential service, as such, the eviction petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of Section 10 (4) of the Act. On the basis of the pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration by the trial court :-