KEDAR BHATIA Vs. LINGARKAR PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is filed by the tenant. He is aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate authority dismissing Rent Appeal No. 127 of 1989 preferred by him and confirming the order of eviction granted by the learned Principal Rent Controller, SecunderabadinRC.No.303 of 1983.

(2.) The respondents herein filed eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(b) and Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short 'the Act' on the ground of requirement of additional accommodation and wilful default. The respondents are the land-lords of the building bearing No.4200 and 4201 situated at Secunderabad which correspond to New Nos.7-1-589, 590, 591, 415 and 416, for short 'the petitioner premises'. The building consists of ground floor and first floor. It is their case that originally one Jadavji Toprani was the tenant of the said building. He died in the year 1974 leaving behind him his only daughter Nainavanthi Toprani. The petitioner herein married the said Nainavanthi Toprani and residing in the said building. The petitioner-landlords have requested Nainavanthi Toprani to vacate the petition schedule building, since it is required for additional accommodation and for their personal business. Nainavanthi Toprani died in the year 1983. The petitioner herein is her legal heir. It is their case that they have requested the petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule premises. A notice was also issued to the petitioner herein to vacate the building. The petitioner herein instead of vacating the premises got issued a reply notice on 20-10-1983 claiming ownership in the petition schedule building premises, the petitioner herein failed to pay the rents after July, 1983 and thereby committed wilful default in payment of rent. The eviction of the petitioner herein is sought by the respondent-landlords on both the grounds.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed counter stating that the respondent-landlords never claimed title in respect of the petition schedule premises for the last 37 years. Jadavji Toprani was not a tenant. Topranies lived in the said building in their own right without paying any rent to any one for over 37 years. The plea of bonafide requirement is not a bonafide one. The petitioner never paid any rent whatsoever to the respondents-landlords even for the month of July, 1983. His wife Nainavanthi Toprani died in July, 1983 and he was observing mourning period for 30 days and during that period, the respondent-landlords obtained his signatures on some paper and it must be deemed to be invalid and ineffective, because he was kept in dark with regard to the nature of the document. It is his case that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. In the additional counter, the petitioner look the plea that the respondents are occupying another non-residential building bearing No.7-1-589. The petition is not maintainable for a composite lease of residential and non-residential building. The petition schedule building was purchased by the ancestors of Nainavanthi Toprani by name Purushotham Das in 1900 and he and his legal representatives occupied the same in their own right as owners. The son of Purushotham Das is Madhavji Toprani. He and the father of the petitioner by name Babu Bai were partners in the business. Half of the petition schedule building was given to Babu Bai in 1930. In 1972 Jadhavji executed a will in favour of his daughter Nainavanthi Toprani bequeathing half of the portion of the building and appointed the petitioner as advisor to Nainavanthi Toprani and declared the petitioner as the owner of the remaining half portion of the building. In the additional counter, it is further stated and the same is required to be stated in his own words' 'The respondents developed relationship with Nainavanthi Toprani as wife and got two children through her.