LAWS(TLNG)-2019-9-58

MOHAMMED HANEEF AHMED Vs. KHAJA AMEENULLAH SHAH

Decided On September 09, 2019
Mohammed Haneef Ahmed Appellant
V/S
Khaja Ameenullah Shah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dt.29.03.2019 in RA.No.105 of 2017 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (the 'Appellate authority') confirming the order dt.15.04.2017 in RC.No.207 of 2014 of IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad for short 'the Rent Controller').

(2.) The respondent had filed the said eviction petition against the petitioner alleging that he is the owner of the RC schedule property; that it was granted on lease to respondent on an oral agreement with an understanding to enhance the rent every year by 10% in the month of May; that the respondent was passing rental receipts whenever rents are paid; that as per the understanding between the parties, the rent was payable on or before 18th day of each English Calendar Month; that the rent at the time of filing the eviction petition was Rs.2,500/- per month; and in August, 2012, the respondent had requested the petitioner to vacate the RC schedule property for his bonafide family needs. He also contended that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents from November, 2012 to August, 2014.

(3.) Petitioner admitted the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself, but contended that rent was enhanced from time to time but not at 10% every year. He alleged that there was no practice of issuing rental receipts and in May, 2012, the rent was Rs.2,500/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. He contended that he had sent the rent for the month of November, 2012 on 17.11.2012 and of December, 2012 on 18.12.2012 through money orders, and that the said money orders were refused. He further contended that he had issued a legal notice on 24.01.2013 to the respondent to furnish bank account number, but he did not give any reply. He also alleged that he had already paid rent up to September, 2014.