IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Bandaru Syamsunder, J.
Pappula Devadas – Petitioner
Versus
Yetukuri Pankajam Died Per Lrs. Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 3362 of 2015
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22, 10(2)(i)(iii), (3)(I)(a)(d), C(1)(a) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Property – Order of eviction - Delivery of vacant possession - Landlord filed petition against revision petitioner before Rent Controller seeking eviction of petitioner from petition schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of same - Held, It is settled law that subsequent events with regard to default in payment of rent can also be taken into consideration while disposing rent control case - Though, suit filed by landlady dismissed, in appeal it was confirmed and Second Appeal is pending, which suit is filed on different cause of action and present petition is filed by landlady basing on tenant committing default in payment of rent subsequent filing of suit, which rightly allowed by Courts below, rejecting contention of tenant/revision petitioner - Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in Orders passed by Courts below warrants interference of this Court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act - Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after called in short ‘Rent Control Act’) against the Orders passed in RCA No.22 of 2013, dated 17.07.2015 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the Rent Control Appeal filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and confirmed the Orders passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC No.17 of 2010, dated 05.11.2013. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant of R1 in respect of RCC No.17 of 2010 case schedule shop room. R1/landlord filed petition against revision petitioner before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i)(iii) and 10(3)(I)(a)(d) and 10C(1)(a) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property and for delivery of the vacant possession of the same. During the pendency of the petition, R1/landlord died and R2 to R4 were brought on record as her legal heirs.
2. The petitioner and R2 to R4 hereinafter referred to as tenant and landlords as arrayed before the Rent Control Court.
3. The landlord filed petition stating that the petition schedule premises consisting of ground and first floor. The ground floor let out to the tenant for monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- per month in December, 1993 for running a printing press and later on a lease agreement was entered on 25.01.1997 for a period of seven years. The agreed rent was Rs.1,300/- per month from August, 1999. She submits that the tenant also occupied first floor and lease period was expired by 25.01.2004, in spite of it the tenant is continuing in the premises unauthorizedly without any further lease by conducting the business in the ground floor and using the first floor for his residence. It is the contention of the landlady/1st petitioner that she is a retired lecturer, aged about 85 years demanded the tenant to vacate the premises after completion of lease period on 25.01.2004, for which the tenant refused and then he filed suit in OS.No.1292 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur which was decreed and thereafter the landlady/1st petitioner filed suit in OS.No.2691 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents and on other grounds, which was dismissed and then she preferred an appeal which also dismissed. Now, the landlords preferred Second Appeal before this Court. It is alleged that the tenant paid rents upto December, 2006 and later failed to pay the rents regularly, as the legal proceedings pending between the parties, the landlady was under an impression that the tenant will deposit rents in that proceedings, which he failed to do so and he is in unauthorized occupation of petition schedule premises without paying rents regularly from January, 2007. It is also the contention of the landlady that she requires petition schedule premises for her personal occupation as of now she being retired person wants to settle at Guntur and lease period was also completed by 01.11.2008 itself. They pray for eviction of respondents.
4. The tenant resisted the contention of landlords and filed counter before the Rent Controller stating that he joined as tenant in the petition schedule premises on 27.12.1993 for running ‘Dharani’ Evening Daily Newspaper and ‘Dharani’ Printing Press and thereafter he is also running ‘Dharani’ Fashion Technology in the premises from the year 2003 and he is tenant for using the premises for three types of his businesses, which he started by borrowing the amounts from the S.C.Corporation, Guntur and also from several individuals. He submits that if he is evicted from the premises, he will sustain huge loss in the business. He alleged that the landlady/1st petitioner is old aged women, who is not living s
The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants cannot deny the status of a landlord based on the agreed rent and must provide satisfactory evidence to support their claims.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
Point of Law : Law is well settled that in absence of any evidence regarding payment of rents or that procedure as laid down under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act....
Failure to follow prescribed rent payment procedure constitutes wilful default under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
The landlord is entitled to evict the tenant for willful default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.
A tenant must establish timely rent payments to avoid eviction; separate attornment of tenancy is unnecessary upon property transfer.
Joint eviction petition by landlords permissible under law; High Court limited to examining legality without re-evaluation of evidence.
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.