LAWS(APH)-1997-12-122

OMER BIN SALAM ASKARI Vs. YOUSUF

Decided On December 30, 1997
OMER BIN SALAM ASKARI Appellant
V/S
YOUSUF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is a tenant of mulgies bearing Nos. 22-2-541/1/1 and 2, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, and the respondent is the landlord thereof. The rent in respect of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 160/- per month excluding electricity charges and the same was required to be paid in advance on the 1st day of every month. However, according to the respondent-landlord, the petitioner-tenant failed to pay rent for as long a period as three years covering 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1986 and committed wilful default in payment of rent which made him liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The ground of personal requirement is also urged by the landlord for securing eviction of the tenant.

(2.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the suit for eviction. The matter was carried in appeal by the landlord before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 362 of 1991. The learned Chief Judge of the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the landlord both on the ground of wilful default and on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller seems to have been swayed away by the fact that the landlord before him kept quiet for as many as three years regarding the non-receipt of rent from the tenant. He also took into consideration the fact that the rent account was not produced before the Court in spite of PW.1 admitting that he was maintaining the rent account. No notice was sent to the tenant for the alleged arrears of rent from April, 1983 to March, 1986. PW.1 also admitted that the factum of arrears of rent was not shown in his Income Tax Returns. The learned Rent Controller further observed that the admission made by the landlord that no receipts were passed since 1970 lent an air of credibility to the tenant's version that rent receipts were not issued to him in spite of the rent having been paid to the landlord.