CHEELA NARAYANARAO AND ANOTHER Vs. R.AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No.192 of 2015 dated 06.04.2016, dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent - tenant against the order of the Additional Rent Control, Secunderabad in RC No.112 of 2013 dated 15.09.2015, this revision, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rent Control Act), is filed by the tenant in R.C. No.112 of 2013. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C. No.112 of 2013.

(2.) The petitioners -landlords filed R.C. No.112 of 2013, under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, seeking a direction to the respondent -tenant, and all others claiming under or through him, to vacate and deliver vacant, peaceful, physical and legal possession of the petition schedule premises to them. The petitioners filed R.C. No.112 of 2013 claiming to be the absolute owners of premises No.2 -1 -1 and 2 -1 - 192 (old Mulgi No.1222), consisting of the ground and first floors admeasuring 810 square feet situated at General Bazaar, Secunderabad, by virtue of a Will executed by their grandmother Smt. Cheela Kanakalakshmi in their favour on 10.12.2006; Smt. Cheela Kanakalakshmi was the owner of the petition schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1957 executed by her vendor in her favour; Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi expired on 17.02.2008; they entered into a registered partition deed on 29.10.2013; the subject property was let out by their grand -mother to the grand -father of the tenant i.e., R. Kanakaiah and, after his death, his son R. Laxman Rao carried on business in the said property; the respondent -tenant was in occupation of the petition schedule property paying a monthly rent of Rs.950/ -; the respondent owned several commercial properties in the same locality; he had filed R.C.No.170 of 2002 against their grand mother Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi and their father Sri C. Ramulu, for deposit of monthly rent of Rs.950/ -, which was allowed; the first petitioner needed the entire premises for his personal requirement for commencing textiles and readymade garment business; the petitioners do not have any other non -residential premises, except the petition schedule property in the twin cities of Secunderabad and Hyderabad; the second petitioner is in private service, and has no objection to the first petitioner carrying on the proposed business; the second petitioner may also join as a partner in the said business; the respondent -tenant had illegally sublet a major portion of the ground floor of the subject mulgi to a third party who was carrying on business under the name and style of Saheli Suits; the respondent had also allowed several petty vendors to carry on business in front of the premises by collecting a hefty license fee per day; he was not revealing details of the sub -tenant, and the quantum of rent being collected by him; the petitioners came to know, through reliable sources, that the respondent was collecting Rs.750/ - per day from the said third party i.e., Saheli Suits; and subletting of the subject property by the respondent was without the written or oral consent of the landlords, and was unlawful.

(3.) In his counter the respondent -tenant denied the allegations contending that the petitioners were not his landlords and neither had he ever paid rent to them nor had they claimed rent at any time as owners of the subject property. While admitting that the subject property belonged to Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi, the respondent -tenant contended that her son C. Sriramulu, (father of the petitioners -landlords) was the person collecting rents; the subject property was let out to his grandfather who had constructed the subject premises thereon at his cost with the consent of the original owner Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi, and her son Sri C. Sriramulu; the respondent was a tenant of the petition schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.950/ -; he was regularly paying rents to Sri C. Sriramulu who failed to collect the rents that were due in the year 2002; as such he was compelled to file the petition in R.C. No.192 of 2002 for deposit of rent; the said R.C. was allowed, and the respondent was depositing the entire one year rent in advance, from the date the said petition was allowed; the deposited amount in the said R.C was withdrawn by Sri C. Sriramulu by filing a cheque petition; rent of Rs.11,400/ - was paid by cheque No.5361104; Sri C. Sriramulu received rent from Court for Rs.36,100/ - by way of cheque No.536071; the relationship between the respondent and Sri C. Sriramulu was that of tenant - landlord; the petitioners, who claimed to be the sons of Sri C. Sriramulu, had failed to prove their rights over the subject property; the petitioners grand -mother Smt. Cheela Kanakalakshmi did not execute any Will in their favour as she died intestate; the subject Will was not even registered; the age of the testatrix, when the Will was executed, was 93 years; neither the Will nor the physical and mental condition of the testatrix was verified by any medical practitioner; the said Will bears her thumb impression as the testatrix was an illiterate lady; the name of the person, who was the scribe of the Will, was not even mentioned; neither had he sublet the subject mulgi to others nor had he collected huge rents; and he was permitted in writing, both by Smt. C. Kanakalakshmi and Sri C. Sriramulu, to carry on business either in his individual capacity, or in partnership with any third party as partners, by executing an agreement.