LAWS(APH)-1997-1-35

SAL BABA Y Vs. RAWALMAL NARAYANDAS

Decided On January 27, 1997
Y.SAI BABA Appellant
V/S
RAWALMAL NARAYANDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the judgment in R.A.No. 140 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 4-10-1980 setting aside the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C.C.No. 233 of 1983, dated 10-3-1987. The revision petitioner will be referred to as landlord, his step mother who is impleaded as respondent No. 2 as landlady and the contesting respondent No. 1 as tenant.

(2.) The landlord filed the eviction petition on two grounds viz., (1) that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from March, 1983 to July, 1983 and (2) that the demised premises is required for bona fide occupation of the landlord. The landlord's case is that the premises originally belonged to late Laxminarayana, father of the landlord and husband of the landlady and it was let out to the tenant during his life time. After the death of the original landlord on 1-4-1969, the landlord and the landlady have been receiving the rents at the rate of Rs. 325/- each from the tenant. While so, he failed to pay the rent to the landlord from 1-3-1983 to 30-7-1983 amounting to Rs. 1,625/- and it amounts to wilful default. It is also his case that he is working as a Salesman in the cloth market and decided to start his own business in cloth in the demised premises and he does not possess any other building of his own in the twin cities and hence he needs the same for commencing cloth business. As the landlady has not been co-operating with the landlord who is seeking eviction of the tenant, she has been impleaded as one of the respondents.

(3.) The tenant resisted the above petition by denying the allegation that he committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1-3-1983 to 30-7-1983. According to him, both the landlord and the landlady used to collect the rents from him at the rate of Rs. 325/- each eversince it was increased from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 650/- and subsequently he surrendered the additional godown to the landlady in April, 1983 and since then he has been paying Rs. 300/- to the landlady and Rs. 325/- to the landlord. It is also averred in the counter that there was a practice of the landlord visiting the premises to collect the rent since the inception of the tenancy and that after his death, the landlord and the landlady were going to the tenant's shop and collecting the rents and that during the period from March, 1983 to August, 1983, the landlord did not come to collect the rent and hence, the default cannot be characterised as wilful default. As regards bona fide requirement, it is averred that the landlord has no experience in the cloth business and he has no capacity to commence the business and the premises is not suitable for such business, as it was being used for aluminium, brass and stainless steel utensils. According to him eviction petition is not maintainable by the co-owner.