MOHANL LAL Vs. SHAJJIA SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlady filed an eviction petition in terms of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 being RC No. 219 of 2001. The application was dismissed by order dt. 29.12.2003. The landlady thereafter preferred an appeal being RA No. 59 of 2004 which has been allowed by the appellate court on 7.10.2006 and the tenant has filed this revision petition. The parties shall be referred to as tenant and landlady.

(2.) The landlady claimed that she was the owner of the petition schedule mulgi. She stated that she was minor, when the tenant had obtained the mulgi from her father and guardian Mohammad Mohiuddin by a lease deed on 1.4.1983 on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- for carrying on business of jewellary. Originally the mulgee was let out to the tenant for a period of 11 months and after expiry of the said period, the tenancy became month to month and continued on the same terms and conditions except the rate of rent which was increased gradually. The tenant paid the rent to the landlady upto January, 2002 and therafter stopped paying the rent and deliberately withheld the same despite repeated demands of the landlady. The tenant was due five months' rent when the application was filed which amounted to Rs.3750/- for period from February to June, 2002. Thus the tenant was a willful defaulter and was liable to be evicted. The landlady also contended that she had come to know that the tenant had sublet the mulgi to his brother, but in terms of the tenancy, the tenant could not have sublet the mulgi to any other person. She also contended that she wanted the property for the purpose of her proposed business and adjacent shop belonging to the landlady was vacant, but she needed both the shops to run iron business.

(3.) The tenant admitted that the landlady was the owner of the property and he had obtained the mulgi on lease from 1.4.1983. According to him, the lease was only 11 months, but thereafter the tenancy continued on the same terms and conditions orally agreed upon between the parties. It was denied that the rent was payable on or before 4th day of each calendar month in advance and it was stated that since inception of the tenancy it was the practice that father of the landlady who was residing in a house located on rear side of the mulgi used to collect the rent either personally or by sending his agent at his convenience at irregular intervals of three or four months and the month wise receipts for the payments were sent subsequently. This practice was followed consistently without any deviation, in spite of the landlady attaining majority and getting married.