RAJASTHANI BHAVAN TRUST Vs. ASHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2017, passed in R.A.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge, allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent/tenant, by setting aside the order of the learned III-Additional Rent Controller-cum-15th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, passed in R.C.No.417 of 2007 dated 27.03.2012.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 10 (2) (v) and (iii) of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent herein from the petition scheduled premises stating that the petitioner is a Trust constituted for promotion of social and educational development of Rajasthani Samaj in particular and the public in general under the Trust Deed, dated 18.10.1965 and that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Mulgi (shop) bearing M.C.H.No.4-5-214/7, admeasuring 12 x 25 square feet in the building of Rajasthani Bhavan situated at Women's College road leading from Kothi to Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad; that the respondent obtained the said shop on rent for her Textile business in February, 1968 and on 22.04.2002, the respondent executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and agreed to pay rent at Rs.908/- per month including amenity charges on or before 10th of each English Calendar month and that the respondent also agreed to pay all the rates, taxes and charges of every description including property tax, electricity consumption charges etc. It was also stated that the respondent has not occupied the said shop and it was always kept closed under lock and key for the last three years and that she was not doing any business therein, even the name board was also removed, as such the respondent ceased to occupy the scheduled shop for continuous period of more than three years without reasonable cause. It was further stated that there was no cleaning and maintenance of the shop, so that the rats have entered therein and damaged the shop.

(3.) The respondent/tenant filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the respondent has never closed the business, but she has changed her business from textile to real estate; that she was using the said premises for the purpose of real estate office and the office used to be opened daily two or three hours in the afternoon; that the Manager of the petitioner-trust used to come to the shop every month and collected the rent and that the respondent has never committed any default in payment of rent. It was also contended that the tenancy of the scheduled property was covered under a registered lease deed and the same is a valid contract and stipulated period of tenancy is for 15 years and the lease is still subsisting and the same is not cancelled by either party and further there is no violation of any terms by the respondent and as such the petitioner has been estopped from filing the eviction petition.