JYOTHI AUTOMOBILES HYDERABAD Vs. KHET BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions, one filed by the tenants, and the other filed by the landlady for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred as per their array in the eviction petition. The building in question is a non-residential building which has been let out by the petitioner to the respondents for the purpose of running an automobile spare parts shop. The rent payable is Rs.375/- per month. The tenancy is oral. The eviction petition was filed on 4-12-1984. Prior to the filing of the eviction petition, the petitioner-landlady filed a civil suit on 19-4-1982 being OS No.609 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge (Temporary) Civil Court, Hyderabad against the tenant for arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment after issue of notice terminating the teriancy. By judgment and decree dated 27-4-1984, that suit was decreed only for arrears of rent disallowing the reliefs of ejectment and damages. Thereafter the eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller. The eviction petition was initially filed against the firm of Messrs Jyothi Automobiles but subsequently the petition was got amended by impleading the partners of the firm also as respondents as per the order dated 30-1-1991. It may also be mentioned that initially the eviction petition was filed on the following grounds :

(3.) The eviction petition was resisted by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition and contending that originally the rent was only Rs.250/- per month, that it was subsequently enhanced to Rs.325/- per month, that the respondents were regularly paying rents as and when they fell due, but the petitioner refused to receive the rents tendered with ulterior motives as the respondents did not agree to further enhance the rents from Rs.325/- as demanded by the petitioner, that the respondents were, therefore, obliged to send the rents by money-order from the month of May, 1979 onwards but all the MOs. were returned as refused by the petitioner. The respondents were, therefore, constrained to issue a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to specify a bank in which to deposit the rents. As she failed to send any reply to the said notice or specify the name of any bank, the respondents filed an application under Section 8 of the Act before the Rent Controller being RC No. 184 of 1982. As no interim order was passed by the Rent Controller therein permitting them to deposit the rents into Court, the rents were deposited by them in their own bank account regularly. After the civil Court's decree in OS No.609 of 1983, they paid all the arrears of rent as per the decree and thus there was no default and muchless wilful default in payment of the rents. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner/ landlady filed IA No.52 of 1986 in RC No. 1072 of 1986 under Section 11 of the Act to stop all further proceedings and give a direction to the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the building on the ground that respondents failed to pay the rents regularly. The said application was dismissed by order dated 24-6-1986 holding that the respondents have duly paid all the rents till date and there were no arrears. However, the respondents were directed to pay or deposit the future rents as and when they fell due. On the same date RC No. 184 of 1982 filed by the respondents was also disposed of with a similar direction to deposit the rents to the credit of the eviction petition filed by the landlady. Thus according to the respondents, there was no default in payment of the rents either before the filing of the eviction petition or during the pendency of the proceedings as alleged by the petitioner. They have also denied and disproved all the other grounds pleaded by the petitioner.