K RACHAMMA SMT Vs. BIMAL BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision challenges the order passed in R.A.No.180/90 which was decided by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 20-9-1994.

(2.) Petitioner herein is the landlady and had filed the eviction petition against the respondents tenant. They shall be referred hereafter as 'petitioner' and "respondent' respectively. The petitioner initiated the eviction proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act by R.C. 1436/86 before the IV Additional Rent Contrailer, Hyderabad. By the said eviction petition, eviction was sought on three grounds permitted under the Act.Theywere(l)Wilful default in the matter of payment of rent of the demised premises for the period between March 1981 to 31st March 1986; (2) Bonafide and reasonable requirement of the demised premises for starting a business by the son of the petitioner and (3) Change of user of the demised premises from the one for which the premises were let out. The petition was resisted by the respondent on all the grounds. It was contended by the respondent in his counter mat though the petitioner's contention that the rent deed was signed by respondent was correct, the said rent deed was got executed under coercion or pressure of immediate eviction through the Court bailiff in an earlier obtained order of eviction. It was also urged that during the course of execution of the earlier order all the property in the premises was kept outside on the road and the respondent was at the mercy of the petitioner and therefore was pressurised to sign the document. It was under such state of affairs that he signed the rent deed and agreed to pay the higher rent as per the claim of the petitioner. He further says that he has paid the rent regularly as was agreed and there is no default of payment of rent. As far as bond fide requirement is concerned it was contended that the requirement was not bona fide and the petitioner was having other mulgies in her possession. Some of the mulgies were lying vacant or were relet. This showed that there was no requirement as such of her son. As far as the change of user of the premises from the purpose for which they were let out to some other purpose was concerned it is the stand of the respondent that though under the rent deed the premises were to be used for the purpose of general merchandise and grocery the use to which the respondent was putting the premises was of similar nature i.e., sale of articles because he was doing business of textile sale and therefore there was no change of user as such. Thus the petition was opposed on all the grounds.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller on assessment of the evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that the rent deed Ex. P-1 was not executed by the tenant under coercion or under threat as was pleaded by him. He also found that the respondent was not a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. This point will be elaborated later on at the time of discussion of arguments on the said point. Similarly, the Rent Controller found that there was no change of user of the building which enables the landlord to claim possession of the demand premises. As far as personal requirement was concerneed the Rent Controller found that the requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide. Thus holding, the petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said order by R.A.No.180/90. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by holding that there was no default committed by the respondent-tenant in the matter of payment of rent and there was neither any substantial change of the user of the demised premises nor was the requirement of the petitioner bona fide for establishing the business of her son. Thus the appeal also came to be dismissed.