IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Sjid Qureshi - Appellant
Vs.
M. Narsing Rao - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 804 of 2016
Decided On : 26-07-2017
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22 - Civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging judgment Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Appellate Court), whereby the Appellate Court set aside order on the file of the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Rent Controller), ordering his eviction from schedule property – Held, it is evident that the landlord own other residential premises both at Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, and Mangalhat and he did not disclose owning or possessing of any other premises of his own but that is not a requirement to claim eviction of the tenant from residential premises since Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (b) of the Act permits the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant for occupation of any one of his family members though he occupied another residential premises of his own in the city, town or village and requirement to disclose occupation of non-residential premises is only in case where landlord sought eviction of tenant from non-residential premises. Therefore, the whole argument of learned counsel for the tenant is not legally sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case - after elaborate consideration of entire material available on record, concluded that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide i.e. for occupation of residential premises by his son, who recently got married, to set up his family whereas the Rent Controller did not appreciate the facts with reference to law in proper perspective and mechanically concluded that the requirement is not bona fide because he is in occupation of other residential premises. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Court is hereby confirmed while disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller – Civil Revision dismissed
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
This civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') is filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging judgment dated 10-09-2015 in R.A.No. 71 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Appellate Court'), whereby the Appellate Court set aside order dated 20-03-2013 in R.C.No. 274 of 2011 on the file of the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Rent Controller'), ordering his eviction from schedule property.
2. The petitioner is tenant and the respondent is landlord and they will hereinafter be referred to as tenant and landlord for convenience.
3. The landlord filed R.C. No. 274 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Controller against the tenant for his eviction from schedule property bearing No. 11-1-119 of New Agapura, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (iii) (b) of the Act alleging that he let out the schedule residential premises on monthly rent @ Rs. 2,665/- and obtained rental deed from the tenant on 01-03-2007 for a period of eleven months. As per the terms of lease deed, the tenant deposited two months' rent as advance and the lease period was expired by February, 2008. Though the lease period was expired, the tenant did not vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord despite his request to vacate the same. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises is required for occupation of his son for his residence who is recently married and to set up practice in the mulgi attached to the house. Therefore, he required the premises for bona fide occupation of his son for residential purpose and to run a dispensary in the mulgi, which is not the subject matter of the schedule premises, along with the landlord. The landlord also claimed eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent from May, 2010, till the date of filing the petition before the Rent Controller. When the landlord demanded the tenant for payment of arrears of rent, the latter gave an undertaking that he would vacate the premises by 31-03-2011 after paying entire dues but he did not vacate the residential premises and pay the arrears of rent. Thereupon, the landlord got issued legal notice dated 15-04-2011 calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises but the tenant did not comply with the legitimate demand made by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord filed petition for eviction of the tenant on the two grounds referred supra.
4. The tenant filed counter denying the bona fide requirement and willful default inter alia contending that the premises bearing No. 11-1-119 consists of three rooms; one hall, kitchen and toilet; admeasuring 135 square yards situated in New Aghapura, Hyderabad, and obtained the same on monthly rent of Rs. 2,200/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges in the year 2000. At the time of commencement of tenancy, the tenant allegedly deposited Rs. 10,000/- as advance which is returnable at the time of vacating the premises without any interest under rental agreement dated 20-06-2005. The tenant paid rent regularly without any default and no amount was due towards rent till the date of filing the petition but there was no practice of issuing receipts acknowledging receipt of monthly rent by the landlord. Son of the landlord already established his practice at Padma Rao Nagar along with the landlord at their residence. As per reliable information received by the tenant, the son of the landlord is about to leave to U.S.A. to set up practice there. Therefore, the schedule premises is neither required nor suitable for resident and establishing dispensary by son of the landlord. The tenant denied execution of any undertaking on 26-12-2010 to vacate the premises and it is a concoction. The land
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh
J. Kumaradasan Nair Vs. IRIC Sohan
Mohammed Abdul Rahman Vs. B. Manorama
Om Prakash Vs. Sunhari Devi Smt.
P. Murali Rao Vs. Raghunatha Rao Ghatge
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.