Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 168
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.SUBHASH REDDY
Karri Krishnaveni - Appellant
Versus
Batchu Nookaraju Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 01-31-03
Headnote:
A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – Section 22 – Eviction – Civil Revision Petition – This Revision Petition by the landlady, is filed under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in r. C. A. on the file of the Rent Control Authority-cum- principal Senior Civil Judge, allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, reversing the judgment and decree passed in r. C. C. on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal junior Civil Judge – It is her case that since the tenant has defaulted in payment rent wilfully, she sought eviction of the premises. Apart from the said ground, petitioner- landlady sought eviction of the respondent- tenant from the suit schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement also – The only question which falls for consideration is: Are there any grounds warranting interference with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate authority in exercise of powers under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court – Held, THE lower appellate authority, has recorded valid reasons in support of its findings that there is no wilful default on the part of the respondent-tenant in paying the rents and there is no bona fide requirement of the schedule premises by the landlady – Coming to the wilful default aspect, it is not the case of the landlady that the respondent-tenant is defaulted in payment of rents – This is a case where regular rents are being paid, but the enhanced rents are not paid, which amounts to wilful default – Having regard to the above said evidence, the lower appellate authority has held that evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be relied on straight away without any corroborating evidence with regard to mediations, in which the tenant alleged to have agreed for enhancement of rent – The above said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is based on valid reasons. As such it cannot be said that the said findings are perverse, warranting any interference under the revisional jurisdiction by this Court – As much as very enhancement is not proved, the question of default will not arise – With reference to bona fide requirement, the lower appellate authority has held that the landlady has already occupied one of the shops, adjoining the schedule premises and doing business in the same – No illegality or any jurisdictional error committed by the lower appellate authority warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 – Court do not see any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate authority and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition by the landlady, is filed under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in r. C. A. NO. 7 of 1998, dated 25-9-2000 on the file of the Rent Control Authority-cum- principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, reversing the judgment and decree passed in r. C. C. NO. 32 of 1991, dated 9-2-1998 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
( 2 ) THE petitioner-landlady is the owner of the house bearing D. No. 20-13-6, Mosque street, Kakinada and the respondent herein is the tenant in one of the shops, carrying radio repair business paying rent of rs. 145/- per month. It is the case of the landlady that monthly rent is Rs. 145. 00, but the respondent agreed for the enhancement of rent to Rs. 450. 00 per month from 1-7-1991. It is her case that in spite of agreement of rent at Rs. 450. 00 per month from 1-7-1991, the respondent-tenant did not pay the enhanced rent at Rs. 450. 00 per month, as such it amounts to wilful default in payment of rent from 1-7-1991 onwards. It is her case that since the tenant has defaulted in payment rent wilfully, she sought eviction of the premises. Apart from the said ground, she also sought eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule premises on the ground that she bona fidely requires the premises to start cloth business. As much as her husband retired from service, they want to start business in the suit schedule premises and therefore the petitioner- landlady sought eviction of the respondent- tenant from the suit schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement also.
( 3 ) THE respondent-tenant resisted the eviction petition stating that rent was only rs. 145/- per month and he voluntarily increased it to Rs. 200. 00 from 1-7-1991 and he has paid the said amount without any default and disputed the alleged agreement pleaded by the petitioner for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 450. 00 per month. It is the case of the respondent-tenant that the petitioner-landlady does not require the premises bona fidely and that similar ground was raised in the earlier eviction petition rcc. No. 83 of 1981 and the same was negatived by the Rent Controller. It is pleaded by the respondent-tenant that the alleged bona fide requirement of the premises for starting business by her husband is only a ground invented so as to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule premises and there are no bona fides in the plea of the petitioner. It is further stated that the other shops in the same building premises have fallen vacant and they are equally suitable for starting business and they were leased out for higher rents whenever they were vacated. Subsequent to the filing of the counter, additional ground was raised which was allowed as per order in I. A. No. 4689 of 1997, dated 12-11-1997. Further it is pleaded that another adjacent shop was already vacated after filing eviction petition and the said shop was utilized by the petitioner for the alleged business of textile and they have already started the said business in the said shop in the name and style of Sri Balaji Textiles.
( 4 ) TO substantiate the case, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, R. W. 1 was examined and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked.
( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the landlady, P. W. 2 is the husband of the landlady and P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the persons, who according to the petitioner, are the witnesses for the mediations taken place for enhancement of rent on 10-6-1991. The three documents marked on behalf of the petitioner are ex. A-l. Money Order coupon, and Exs. A-2 and A-3 notice and reply notice issued by the petitioner and respondent respectively. R. W. 1 is the tenant and the documents exs. B-l, B-2 and B-8 marked on behalf of the tenant are Postal acknowledgments and mon
