SUGUI BAI ALIAS SHAKUNTALA BAI Vs. RAFAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order dated 7-4-1997 in RANo.484/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge. City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the (sic dissmisal of petition for) eviction of the respondent-tenant ordered in R.C.No.443/88, dated 13-9-1993 on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) A few facts that are necessary to dispose of this Revision petitioners are as follows:The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is their tenant. The petitioners own the schedule malgi bearing Municipal No. 15-9-561/5 and 6 situated at Mahboobgunj, Hyderabad, and the same was let out to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs.650.00 w.e.f 1-11-1986 payable by 5th of every succeeding English calender month. The petitioners alleged that the respondent never paid the rent regularly and committed wilful default in payment of rents from 1-11-1986 to 30-4-1988 i.e. for a period of 18 months amounting to Rs.11,700.00. Whenever the respondent paid the rents a receipt was issued. According to the petitioners the demised premises was constructed on the open well after closing it partly with R.C.C. slab and the well under it is still in existence. The respondent is running heavy machinery in the premises resulting in serious vibration and, thus, causing damage to the demised premises and danger to the human lives. The negligent and reckless use of the schedule premises resulted in damaging the entire shah bad flooring which was broken into pieces. Thus, the respondent is committing acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised premises. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent and their men are very often picking up quarrels with the petitioners and their men who are residing in the upstair portion of the schedule premises. Further the respondent is running the machine during nights continuously and thus creating nuisance to the petitioner and others in the vicinity.

(3.) The respondent-tenant in his counter denied the quantum of monthly rent and issuance of receipt by the petitioners-landlords for the rents paid by him. According to him, the agreed rent was Rs.175.00 which was enhanced to Rs.250.00 subsequently about 12 years back. He was regular in payment of rents till March, 1988. As there was perfect understanding, no rent receipts were issued to him. According to him, originally the father of the Petitioners 2 to 4 and husband of the 1st petitioner, namely Babulal, was the landlord. Even after his death, the 3rd petitioner had collected rents from the respondent upto March, 1988. The respondent submitted that with the consent and agreement of Mr. Babulal only he installed the machinery and carrying on business peacefully. He denied the allegations of committing of acts of waste, negligent use of (lie demised premises, causing nuisance and picking up of quarrels with the petitioners and their men. On the other hand, he alleged it is the petitioners and their men who are always quarrelsome. On 15-4-1988, when the respondent as usual tendered the rent for April, 1988, the landlords refused the same and demanded to vacate the premises saying they got an offer of rent of Rs.1000.00. Though there was mediation by the elders the petitioners refused to receive the rents. The respondent alleged that the petitioners prevented the respondents from opening the door of the demised premises by putting stones in front of it on 24-4-1988 and then he made a complaint to the police. When the 3rd petitioner brought some goondas to evict him, he filed O.S.No.1614/88 on the file of VIII Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction and obtained interim injunction. He had also remitted the rent for the month of April, 1988 by MO. which was returned as refused. The respondent submitted that when he got issued a notice on 30-4-1988 to the 3rd petitioner, they replied the said notice setting the present false pleas. He denied the wilful default and any damage to the demised premises as alleged by the petitioners.