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, 1960 read with Rule 5 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 is followed, it has to be construed that tenant has committed an act of wilful default in payment of rent.

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 ev