SUNIL M RUPANI Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dtd. 24/11/2015 in R.A.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, tenants, was allowed setting aside the order dtd. 22/12/2014 passed in R.C.No.15 of 2013, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereunder the said petition, filed for eviction, was allowed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

(3.) The petitioner herein, landlord, filed R.C.No.15 of 2013 against the respondents herein, tenants, under Ss. 10(2) (i) and 3 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule mulgi on the grounds of willful default and personal occupation. According to him, he is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule mulgi bearing No.41, admeasuring 306 sq. ft., situate at Cellar, Chenoy Trade Centre, Parklane, Secunderabad and the first respondent was inducted as tenant on an unregistered lease agreement for a period of three months commencing from 1/8/1995 to 31/7/1998 to use it as godown of the second respondent on initial monthly rent of Rs.1,750.00 exclusive of electricity, water, proper tax and maintenance charges etc., with an interest free refundable deposit of Rs.15,000.00. The term of the lease was for three years commencing from 1/8/1995. The first respondent promised to vacate the same and deliver vacant peaceful possession of the said mulgi and had not enhanced the rent and continued to occupy the same on one pretext or the other. The first respondent in contravention of the lease unauthorisedly sublet the mulgi to M/s Mahaveer Enterprises and started collecting heavy rents. The petitioner reliably learnt that the first respondent is collecting rent of Rs.15,000.00 to Rs.18,000.00 per month from M/s Mahaveer Enterprises. The petitioner is in need of the mulgi for personal occupation for carrying on the business of his wife for running a boutique and requested the first respondent to hand over the same. The first respondent assured that he will vacate the same, but he was dodging the matter on one pretext of the other. The petitioner got issued legal notice dtd. 29/11/2012 to the first respondent, who, having received the same, failed to give reply to the notice or vacate and handover the mulgi. The first respondent committed default in payment of rent and thereby violated the terms of tenancy by subletting the same to a third person without consent of the petitioner.