IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.
Guru Basaiah – Appellant
Versus
A.Ramesh – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.104 of 2016
Decided on : 22-06-2022
Rent Control - Eviction - A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 10(2)(i), Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The owner filed for eviction of the tenant based on wilful default in payment of monthly rents and bona fide requirement. The tenant denied the allegations and claimed to have paid the rent promptly.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Court found in favor of the owner, but the appellate Court set aside the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that the tenant committed wilful default and the owner's requirement was genuine, setting aside the appellate Court's decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the owner established wilful default and bona fide requirement. 2. Whether the appellate Court erred in its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The tenant's failure to follow the prescribed procedure for rent payment constituted wilful default. The appellate Court failed to apply the legal principles correctly.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the appellate Court's judgment and confirming the eviction order.
ORDER :
Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment and decree of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No.267 of 2014 dated 12.11.2015.
2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though the respondent is being represented by Mrs. B.Swarna Latha, advocate, yet the learned counsel failed to submit her contentions.
3. The gamut of the case as could be perceived through a meticulous perusal of the entire material that is available on record is that the revision petitioner filed a Rent Control Case vide R.C.No.447 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the respondent and to hand over the physical possession of the petition schedule property to him. After due enquiry, the Court of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad through order dated 18.10.2014 directed the respondent to vacate the petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession of the said property to the revision petitioner within three months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal. The said appeal i.e., R.A.No.267 of 2014 was dealt with by the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and by allowing the said appeal through judgment dated 12.11.2015, the learned judge has set aside the order of eviction that was passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
4. The revision petitioner (hereinafter referred as “the owner” for the sake of convenience of discussion) sought for eviction of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the tenant” for the sake of convenience of discussion) on two grounds, the first one being wilful default in payment of monthly rents and the second is for bona fide requirement. The owner sought for eviction of the tenant basing on Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The version of the owner is that he had let out a portion in the ground floor of house bearing No.LIG-1, 41, located at Udayanagar, B.K.Guda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, which consists of three rooms and a toilet to the tenant in the year 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The same is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month and the tenancy is oral. The tenant was irregular in payment of monthly rents. After lapse of seven years, in the month of March, 2008, he increased the rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. From the month of April, 2008, the tenant was not paying the monthly rents in spite of several requests and demands. The tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.2129 of 2009 which stood pending the file of the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction order preventing him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The tenant fell due a sum of Rs.99,000/- towards arrears of rents for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2010. Further, he bona fidely require the said premises for his personal use and occupation. He was a railway employee and retired from service on 31.12.2004, and after retirement, he requested the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenant promised to vacate the same within short period, but he did not do so. He is staying in a portion of the house that belongs to his brother by paying rent of Rs.3,000/- per month.
5. Thus, the version of the owner is that the tenant is liable to be evicted both on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and for bona fide requirement for his personal use and occupation.
6. The tenant resisted the claim of the owner by denying all the material allegations. The version of the tenant is that he was never irregular in payment of rents and the owner used to reside in the adjacent portion of the petition schedule property and he used to collect the rent ever
Failure to follow prescribed rent payment procedure constitutes wilful default under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
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....
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.
A tenant must establish timely rent payments to avoid eviction; separate attornment of tenancy is unnecessary upon property transfer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful default in payment of rent requires intentional, deliberate, and conscious non-payment by the tenant. The continuous payment of rent du....
The tenant must provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the landlord's title as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.
A tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent regularly remains intact despite pending proceedings under Section 8(5) for deposit of rent; failure to do so, resulting in accumulation of arrears, consti....
The landlord is entitled to evict the tenant for willful default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.
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.