MOHD YOUSUF QUERSHI Vs. CHUNNI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment, dated 11-08-2004, passed in R.A.No.117 of 2000 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, setting aside the dismissal order, dated 23-03-1998, in R.C.No.405 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) Petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady. The eviction petition filed by the land lady in R.C.No.405 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the original sole tenant, Yousuf Qureshi, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises was dismissed by order dated 23-03-1988. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed R.A.No.117 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 11-08-2004 allowed the same on the ground that the said premises is bonafidely required by the landlady for starting the business of general stores and during pendency of the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority the sole tenant died and an application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives of the sole tenant filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) R.C.No.405 of 1995 was filed seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule property bearing mulgi No.5-7-512/1 situated at Nampalli, Hyderabad. There is no dispute with regard to the rent payable by the tenant, i.e., Rs.135/-. It is the case of the landlady that her husband died on 05-07-1994 and that she is unable to maintain herself and on account of the death of her husband she has to borrow certain amounts towards the obsequies of her husband and thereafter the landlady requested the tenant to vacate the suit premises as the same is required for the purpose of opening a general stores. It is stated that there is no source of income to eke out her livelihood and she is not in occupation of any other non-residential premises in the twin cities except the suit mulgi and the suit mulgi is suitable for her personal requirement to start the business of general stores. It is stated that she is having one more mulgi i.e., 5-1-512/2, but the same was alienated by her in 1978 due to financial crisis and therefore except the petition schedule mulgi she has no other premises. The said petition was filed on 14-06-1995 and a counter has been filed by the tenant admitting the landlord and tenant relationship and also the monthly rent @ Rs.135/- per month but the allegation that the landlady borrowed certain amounts for the obsequies of her husband was denied. It is stated that as the landlady refused to receive the admitted rent the tenant filed R.C.C.No.255 of 1995 and as a counterblast R.C.C.No.405 of 1995 has been filed seeking the said premises for personal occupation. It is stated that the landlady is not in bona fide requirement of the said premises and therefore the landlady is not entitled for eviction of the tenant.