RIZWAN Vs. ALLEEMUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, passed in RA No.272 of 1990 on 22-12-1994 confirming the order passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in RC No.299 of 1981, dated 6-7-1990 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to vacate from the suit accommodation.

(2.) The facts which are no longer in dispute before me, in short, are that, the deceased Shaban Alt was the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He had taken the suit accommodation on lease initially for a period of 10 years for non-residential purpose on 11-12-1963 through registered lease deed, Ex.P2, from the respondent-landlady on a monthly rent of Rs.270/- excluding water and electricity charges. The rent was agreed to be enhanced to Rs.300/- per month from 11-12-1973 (sic). The said Shaban All expired some time in the year 1967. The respondent-landlady did not know about his death. She terminated his tenancy through a telegraphic notice dated 27-3-1973 and filed a suit against him in OS No.1746 of 1974 in the Court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for ejectment and compensation for use and occupation of the suit accommodation. The fourth petitioner, Abad Cafe, and the fifth petitioner, Agha Hussain Zabet, were subsequently added as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. Through the memo filed by the 5th respondent dated 1-4-1975, she had come to know about the death of the tenant Shaban All. On 5-8-1981, she withdrew the suit with permission to file a separate suit on the same cause of action and the certified copy of the impugned order is at Ex.P8. On 15-10-1981, she filed the suit against the petitioner Nos.l to 5 and one Syed Aga Parsayan on the ground that the petitioner Nos.l to 3 had committed wilful default in payment of arrears of rent from 1-9-1973 to 31-10-1981 amounting to Rs.29,303-20 ps., that deceased Shaban Alt had sub-let the suit accommodation to the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 and Syed Aga Parsayan, that the respondent-landlady bonaftde requires the suit accommodation for starting the business of her son and that the petitioner Nos.l to 3 have committed acts of waste which has impaired the materially the value and utility of the suit accommodation.

(3.) The petitioner No.5, claiming himself to be the general power of attorney holder of the petitioner Nos.l to 3, denied the allegations made in the petition. It has been pleaded that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are not the tenants of the respondent-landlady because they did not come within the purview of the definition of tenant under Section 2(ix) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act') as the suit accommodation is a non-residential accommodation. It has been further pleaded that Shaban Ali was entitled, as per the terms of the lease deed, Ex.P2, to carry on the business in partnership in the suit accommodation. He was carrying on the business in the name of Abad Cafe of which Syed Aga Parsayan was taken as one of the partners. It has been denied that late Shaban Ali had sub-let the suit accommodation to the petitioner Nos.4 and 5. The rent of the suit accommodation was duly tendered, but the respondent-landlady has refused to accept the same. It has been denied that the respondent-plaintiff requires the suit accommodation for starting the business of his youngest son namely Mohd. Mahmood Ali. It has been alleged that the respondent- plaintiff had other suitable non-residential accommodation in which she did not start the alleged business, but had let out the same to others. It has also been denied that any damage had been caused to the suit accommodation by the petitioners. It is alleged specifically that the petitioner No.5 was ever a partner in Abad Cafe, the petitioner No.4. It has been pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of all the heirs of the deceased Shaban Ali. It has also been pleaded that the accommodation had been constructed between 1957 and 1963 and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition by virtue of Section 32(b) of the Rent Control Act, though it was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner No.5 submitted a separate written statement taking almost similar pleas and alleging that he was not a partner in the partnership firm, Abad Cafe, and he has no concern with the suit accommodation. The petitioner No.4, Abad Cafe, did not file any separate counter. The said Syed Aga Parsayan expired during the pendency of the proceedings which stood abated against him.