MADHYAHANNAPU NARASIMHARAO Vs. SUNKARA SRIRAMA HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by the respondent in R. C. C. No. 54 of 2994 on the file of the rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, kakinada.

(2.) THE R. C. C. was filed by the first respondent herein for eviction of the revision petitioner from the schedule premises contending that he is the owner of the property. The building is more than 100 years old. The respondent therein took the same on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- payable by first of every succeeding month. The respondent is irregular in payment of the rents. After retirement, the first petitioner started pursuing the matter and demanding the respondent to pay the rent. The respondent committed willful default in payment of the rent to a tune of Rs. 3,600/- and failed to pay the rent since six months prior to the filing of the petition. The respondent is not maintaining the premises properly and was causing damage to the building. The respondent, who is running a printing press, was bringing heavy machinery into the premises and on account of vibrations, further damage is likely to be caused to the building. After retirement, the first petitioner was unable to maintain his family with megre pension, therefore, he wanted to carry on the business in the building after making necessary repairs to it as his only alternative is to earn something to maintain his family, therefore the first petitioner is seeking vacant possession of the schedule premises for his self occupation. Hence, the petition for eviction of the respondent.

(3.) THE Respondent-Revision Petitioner filed a counter contending that the first petitioner let out the portion to him for both residential and nonresidential purpose in the year 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ -. The rent was enhanced from time to time and the present rent is Rs. 600/- per month. The respondent is regularly paying the rent. The respondent never caused any damage to the building. He is running a printing press. He never introduced any machinery into the building. The schedule premises is not needed for the personal occupation to do business by the petitioner and it is invented to evict him. The petitioner is having another building in the back side of the schedule premises and it was leased out to a third party in getting a monthly rent of rs. 2,000/ -. The respondent is unable to enhance the rent as demanded by the petitioner. The petitioner is interfering with the amenities and harassing the respondent. The petitioner did not allow the respondent and his family members to take water from the tap. The petitioner was causing obstruction for free flow of water and dumping the waste material. The petitioner removed the roof of the bathroom and did not attend necessary repairs to latrines etc. He gave a complaint to the police, but the police did not take any action. The petitioner filed the Petition with a mala fide intention to evict the respondent. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.