Point of Law :
Court had drawn a distinction between ‘simple default’ and ‘willful default’. The sum and substance of the other decisions relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant is that the requirement of the premises by the landlord should be bona fide in order to evict the tenant and that if a landlord is in possession of a non-residential building in the city, town or village and he requires additional accommodation of a non-residential building in the same locality, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Rent Control Act creates an embargo on the same. There cannot be any dispute with regard to law decided in the aforementioned cases. In the instant case, the testimony of the respondent/landlady and her witnesses as to the bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property for starting business by her youngest son was unshaken. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant are distinguisbale on facts from the case on hand.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘Rent Control Act’), is filed by the petitioner/tenant, challenging the judgment, dated 14.06.2017, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 by the Rent Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, whereby, the judgment, dated 30.06.2014, passed in R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 by the Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule property, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

3. The respondent herein is the landlady and the petitioner herein is the tenant of the premises bearing Mulgi No.7-6-563/2 admeasuring 10 X 15 square yards situated at Kisangunj, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule property’). The respondent/landlady filed the subject R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule property, contending as follows:

“The respondent/landlady is the owner of the petition schedule property. She let out the same to the petitioner/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month about fifteen years ago. The rent was enhanced from time to time and at present, it is Rs.900/- per month. The lease was oral. The rent payable is on yearly basis, i.e., from March to March. The petitioner/tenant paid rent up to 31.03.2009 and committed default in payment of rents from April, 2009 to May, 2010. In spite of repeated demands, the petitioner/tenant failed to pay the rent from 01.04.2009. The youngest son of the respondent/landlady is unemployed and he intends to start a business in the petition schedule property. Though the respondent/landlady requested the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule property for personal requirement, the petitioner/tenant did not vacate the same. Therefore, the petitioner/tenant is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and also personal requirement.”

4. The revision petitioner/tenant filed counter, admitting the tenancy. He contended as follows:

“House No.7-6-532 consists of several mulgies, including the petition schedule property. Originally, the petition schedule property belonged to one Ram Kishore Jaju, who died about nine years ago. After his death, the respondent/landlady and her family members orally informed the petitioner/tenant that the said properties have been transferred in the name of the respondent/landlady in the municipal records. Initially, the father of the petitioner/tenant obtained the petition schedule property on lease from Ram Kishore Jaju under a written lease agreement. The petitioner/tenant became the tenant of the petition schedule property in the year 2001 with the knowledge and consent of the respondent/landlady and her family members. He has been paying rents to the respondent/landlady and her family members and the rent receipts were being issued in the name of the respondent/landlady. The respondent/landlady alone is not the owner of the petition schedule property. Since the original owner of the building, namely, Ram Kishore Jaju died, his legal heirs and successors became the owners of the said building and as such, the claim of the respondent/landlady that she is absolute owner of the entire building, including the petition schedule property, is not correct. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though the rent of the petition schedule property was on monthly basis, but as per the oral terms, the rent was being paid once in a year. The petitioner/tenant never committed any default in payment of rents. As the respondent/landlady was not willing to receive the rents, the petitioner/tenant sent a demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- towards 14 months rent in the name of the respon