LAXMI BAI Vs. YASHODA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the C.R.Ps. are interconnected and are filed against the common judgment of the Appellate Court and arise out of one eviction petition, they are clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment. These petitions are filed by the landlords who are widow, sons and daughters of late Kishan Rao Patangay who died on 2-11-1979, against six tenants for eviction. The eviction petition which was originally filed against fourteen tenants was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and against the same seven tenants have preferred appeals successfully. The other seven tenants who have not preferred appeals have vacated the premises. Even among the seven tenants who have appealed one tenant has since vacated the premises and that is how the landlords have preferred six C.R.Ps. against six tenants. The parties are referred to in the judgment as arrayed in the eviction petition. The particulars regarding the premises and the grounds of eviction as stated in the eviction petition are given in the tabular form below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_302_ALT3_1997Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) According to the eviction petition, the petitioners are the owners of the building bearing No.15-1-595/1 to 15-1-595/21 and 15-1-602,15-1-602/1 and 15-1-602/2 situated at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The building consists of ground floor, first floor, second floor and two rooms in the third floor. Petitioners 1 and 3 are carrying on money lending business in a portion in ground floor bearing No.15-1-595 and have residential building at Feelkhana. In respect of premises bearing No.15-1-601, the petitioners have filed eviction case RC 31/77 against the tenant who is running business in the said portion. Petitioners 3, 7 and 8 are qualified doctors in medicine. Petitioner No.3 is a post graduate in general medicine, while petitioner No.7hasD.G.O. in addition to M.B.B.S. Similarly petitioner No.8 is a doctor. Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 who were in Iran doing service proposed to come back to India on expiry of contract period to run Maternity and Nursing Home along with the 3rd petitioner who is now having a clinic at Badechowdi in Hyderabad city in a rented premises. They do not have any other non-residential building in the city. Hence they filed eviction petition for bona fide requirement under Sec.lO(3)(iii)(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'. They also sought conversion of the subject premises into non-residential building under Sec.18 of the Act. It is also alleged in the petition that respondents 4 and 5 are in default in payment of rent for an amount of Rs.1500/- for the period June to October, 1983 and Rs.2500/- for the period November, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 respectively.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that petitioner No.3 though a doctor is now doing money lending business, that it is not known whether the contract of the petitioners 7 and 8 will continue in future and it is doubtful whether they will come back to India from Iran and hence the commencement of Maternity Nursing Home is a speculative venture created to seek eviction. It is also stated that though the premises occupied by him are non-residential in nature, the other portions being residential, cannot be used for non- residential purpose of running maternity and nursing home unless they are converted under Scc.18 of the Act. The 4th respondent while taking the same plea as 3rd respondent further contended that he was never in default in payment of rent and that the petitioner's rent collector collected the rent without passing receipts in accordance with the usual practice of issuing receipts long after receipt of rents. The 5th respondent filed counter on the same lines as 3rd respondent. Regarding wilful default, he states that the rent was refused by the petitioners when offered by him and as such on the date of the first hearing arrears of rent were deposited in the court. The other respondents against whom the only ground of eviction is bona fide requirement, filed counters on the same lines as 3rd respondent. The respondents 17 to 21 have taken an additional plea that as the premises 15-1-602 is a separate building having separate entrance and having nothing to do with the main building, it is not necessary for running the maternity home.