BABULAL Vs. LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions are the landlords and the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the sole tenant of the same landlords. The Rent Control Case Nos. 305 of 1997 and 362 of 1997 filed by the original landlord-Babulal against the tenant on the file of the l-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad were disposed of on 27-12-2000, allowing the Rent Control Cases, ordering eviction. Aggrieved by the said orders, the tenant filed Rent Appeal Nos.98 of 2001 and 99 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court/Rent Appellate Court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the appeals, the original landlord Babulal died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The said Rent Appeals were allowed on the same day by orders dated 1-11-2002 and aggrieved by the same, the landlords filed these two Civil Revision Petitions. The parties herein are referred to as they are referred in Rent Control Cases before the Rent Controller.

(2.) There is no dispute with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship. The premises bearing mulgi No.4-1-543, which is the subject matter of R.C.no.305 of 1997 and premises bearing mulgi No. 4-1-545 which is the subject matterofR.C.No.362 of 1997 were leased out in favour of the tenant. The said premises were situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the schedule premises). There is also no dispute with regard to the monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs.300/- to each of the premises. It is stated that the said mulgies were given to the tenant for the purpose of running Kirana shop i.e., Government Ration Shop.

(3.) Though the landlords have taken several grounds seeking eviction i.e., wilful default in payment of rent, closing of business of M/s. Ganeshlal Bansilal and the tenant kept the mulgi under the lock and key and the tenant has got sufficient alternative accommodation and that the tenant committed acts of waste in such a way causing nuisance to the landlords and the landlords require the said schedule premises for their bona fide requirement but, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords advanced his arguments on two grounds alone i.e., the tenant changed the nature of business and that the tenant keptthe premises closed under lock and key for more than four months. The other grounds i.e., wilful default, acts of waste and personal requirement etc., have been given up as the Rent Appellate Court considered the said issues in detail and held that there was no wilful default in view of the advance available with the landlord and also on the ground that the petition filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed and no acts of waste or nuisance caused to the landlord and that the petitioner has not bona fidely required the premises. Therefore, the relevant pleadings relating to the aforesaid two issues are required to be considered.