MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. B MANORAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act 1960 (the Act, for brevity) arise out of same original proceedings and therefore it is expedient to dispose of by common order. These civil revision petitions are filed by thirteen petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 5 are brothers, petitioner no. 6 is wife and petitioners 7 to 13 are children of late Mohammed Abdul Rasheed (other brother of petitioners 1 to 5 ). All of them filed R. C. No. 473 of 1998 before learned IV Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, for eviction of respondents from non-residential premises bearing Municipal no. 5-2-1020. Grounds urged are wilful default in payment of rent from January 1998 to June 1998 and bona fide requirement of leased premises for personal occupation for commencement of business in 'tobacco khiwam' by petitioner No. 9. Learned Rent Controller negatived allegation of WILFUL default but held that requirement of petitioner No. 9 is genuine and bona fide, and accordingly ordered eviction of respondents. Aggrieved by the same, respondents herein filed rent appeal being R. A. No. 196 of 2002 whereas petitioners herein filed R. A. No. 222 of 2002 insofar as finding of wilful default went against them. Learned Appellate Authority, namely, Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, by common order dated 26. 10. 2006 while reversing order of learned rent Controller, dismissed R. A. No. 222 of 2002 and allowed R. A. No. 196 of 2002. Aggrieved by the same, CRP No. 414 of 2007 is filed against R. A. No. 222 of 2002 and CRP No. 517 of 2007 is filed against r. A. No. 196 of 2002. In this order, petitioners and respondents are referred to as landlords and tenants respectively.

(2.) PETITION schedule mulgi bearing municipal No. 5-2-1020 is part of a large building constructed in an area of 500 sq. yards in a busy business locality in hyderabad known as Moazam Jahi Market. One Manikyarao Antoo was owner of property. B. Satyanarayana Das took petition schedule mulgi on lease sometime in 1960. After death of Manikyarao Antoo, his son Pasupathirao Antoo succeeded to the property to whom Satyanarayana Das was paying rents. He also took two other rooms in the first floor of building. He was carrying on business in selling electrical light fittings and chandeliers. Petitioners 1 to 5 along with their father, Mohammed Rasool, purchased property from Pasupathirao antoo. Tenancy was attorned in favour of petitioners. After death of Satyanarayana das, his wife and son (respondents 1 and 2 herein) succeeded to tenancy. It is the case of landlords that Mohammed Rasool was carrying on business of 'tobacco khiwam' and after his death, his six sons carried on business. After death of Mohammed Abdul rasheed (brother of petitioners 1 to 5), his son Mohammed Abdul Muzeeb, petitioner no. 9, joined tobacco shop and gained experience. Family of Rasheed - wife, daughters and sons - were residing at shahgunj. In the rent control petition, they alleged that tenants failed to pay rent from january 1998 to June 1998 and that petition schedule mulgi is required for commencement of business by petitioner No. 9 as the family of late Rasheed was facing difficulty and inconvenience at Shahgunj house belonging to mother of petitioners 1 to 5. They also alleged that petitioners 6 to 13 do not have premises in Hyderabad which is their own and therefore they required petition schedule mulgi for personal occupation.

(3.) TENANTS opposed petition. They stated that when first petitioner refused to receive rents, they were sent by money order for the months of September 1991 to december 1991, which was also refused. Therefore, Satyanarayana Das filed R. C. No. 394 of 1992 and obtained interim order in I. A. No. 444 of 1992 seeking permission to deposit rents in the Court. R. C. No. 394 of 1992 was allowed on 5. 8. 1993 and satyanarayana Das used to pay rents in the Court. After his death, respondents 1 and 2 tendered rent for the month of January 1998, as the same was refused after giving notice to landlords, tenants filed R. C. No. 182 of 1998 seeking permission of Court to deposit rents which was allowed. As rents are being deposited in the Court, there is no wilful default. Insofar as bona fide requirement is concerned, they alleged that landlords are owners of a non-residential building at Moazam Jahi Market and another non-residential building at Shahgunj and therefore petition for eviction of tenants is not maintainable. They also alleged that landlords demanded enhancement of rent to Rs. 5,000/- per month with deposit of rs. 2. 50 lakhs and when it was refused, they filed eviction petition with an intention to evict tenants besides filing eviction petitions against other tenants of premises bearing Municipal Nos. 5-2-1019, 5-2-1021 and 5-2-1022.