HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5994 of 2008 Date: December 06, 2010 Between: J.B. Pratap Singh … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Respondent And 1. D. Narender & 2 others. … Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioners * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5994 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed in R.A. No.236 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. For better appreciation of the facts, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the trial court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision are as follows: Petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule premises, which is part of the main house building. They got it by virtue of registered gift settlement dated 01.3.1995 executed by their mother D. Bhulakshmi in their favour. The respondent is tenant to the petition schedule premises and his tenancy was attorned to the petitioners. The respondent was paying monthly rent of Rs.350/- to the petitioners through the first petitioner from 01.3.1995 after the attornment of tenancy. Rent was enhanced to Rs.400/- with effect from 01.01.1996. The respondent paid rents from 01.01.1998 at the rate of Rs.450/- per month and from 01.01.2000 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month by enhancing Rs.50/- after every two years as agreed between the respondent and petitioners. He paid rent of Rs.500/- up to December 2001. The respondent had to pay at the rate of Rs.550/- per month from 01.01.2002 by enhancing Rs.50/- over the existing rent at Rs.500/- per month, but he committed wilful default in payment of rents at the rate of Rs.550/- from 01.01.2002 onwards and he became due Rs.8,250/- by the end of March 2003. 4. It is further averred that the respondent filed a false suit O.S. No.4138 of 2002 against the mother of the petitioners claiming to be a tenant of the mother of the petitioners by denying their title and ownership having paid the rent to them from 01.3.1995 onwards till December 2001. Originally the petition schedule premises was let out to the brother of the respondent by name Satyanarayan Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- by the mother of the petitioners and he continued up to 1989 on a payment of Rs.150/- per month. On 01.01.1990 the said Satyanarayan Singh got the tenancy transferred in the name of the respondent on condition of enhancement of rent from Rs.150/- to Rs.250/- per month and also on a further condition that the rent had to be enhanced at the rate of Rs.50/- after every two years. The same terms continued till the attornment of tenancy by the mother in favour of the petitioners and even thereafter also. 5. It is also averred that since the petitioners intended to start kirana shop and general store business in the petition schedule premises and since the respondent had closed the shop and kept idle since six months without paying rent and arrears of rent, the respondent is liable to be evicted. 6. The respondent filed a counter stating that he obtained petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and by depositing Rs.20,000/- as refundable deposit with Smt. D.Bhoo- laxmi, mother of the petitioners, in the month of October, 1985 and is regular in payment of monthly rent. The monthly rent was enhanced from time to time and now present monthly rent was Rs.150/-. The said Bhoolaxmi is not in the habit of passing any kind of rent receipts and used to come and collect the rents from him. He paid monthly rents up to the end of July 2002 to her and the respondent came to know about the change of ownership in favour of the petitioners when he received summons. Immediately he paid rents for the period from 01.8.2002 to 31.7.2003 and also double payment under protest without prejudice to his rights and contentions, for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.7.2002 at Rs.150/- per month totalling to Rs.2,850/- to the counsel for the petitioners and obtained a receipt. Smt. D. Bhoolaxmi never informed the respondent about the change of the ownership in favour of the petitioners at any time and never attorned the tenancy of the respondent in favour of the petitioners. Since the respondent had already paid the monthly rents at Rs.150/- till 31.7.2002 to Smt. D. Bhoolaxmi, the question of payment of monthly rent at Rs.350/- per month from 01.3.1995 to the petitioners does not arise. When the change of ownership had not been informed by the mother of the petitioners in their favour to the respondent, till the receipt of notices in the eviction petition, the question of either payment of rent or enhancement of rent does not arise. The respondent filed the suit O.S. No.4138 of 2002 when the mother of the petitioners mala fidely tried to interfere and dispossess him from the petition schedule premises and obtained interim injunction, which became final. It is denied that at no point of time the schedule mulgi was let out to Satyanarayana Singh by the mother of the petitioners and that he never continued in possession in the demised mulgi till 1989 and he never paid any rent to anybody. It is also denied that Satyanarayana Singh introduced him on 01.01.1990 to D. Bhoo- laxmi and he never transferred his tenancy in the name of the respondent. It is also false to say that he had agreed to enhance the monthly rent from Rs.150/- to Rs.250/- at that time and that the allegations with regard to enhancement of rent of Rs.50/- after every two years is false. He paid the monthly rents after receipt of notice in the eviction petition on the first date of hearing and thereafter he is continuously paying the monthly rents and no amount is due and payable to the petitioners as on this date. He never committed any default or willful default in payment of rent. The respondents- landlords do not require the petition schedule mulgi for their alleged personal requirement and the said ground is only invented to harass him. He is running the cycle taxi even as on today in the petition schedule premises and had never closed the same. 7. To substantiate the case of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. On behalf of respondent R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and Ex.C-1 were marked. 8. The trial court accepted the case of the petitioners and directed the respondent to vacate the premises within a period of three months. On appeal the said finding was confirmed. Without there being a justifiable cause, the respondent denied the title of the landlord. When the tenant was examined as R.W.1 it is categorically admitted that he accepted the petitioners as owners of the petition schedule property. Therefore, denying title of the landlord is not bona fide one. 9. With regard to default, the rent payable is Rs.550/- per month for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.3.2003 amounting to Rs.8,250/-, the respondent as tenant has not adduced any evidence to show that he is paying agreed rent to the petitioners/landlords in terms of the agreement. He contends that he has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the mother of the petitioners at the time of inducting into possession. Except oral testimony of R.W.1 there is no evidence to show that he has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month from 01.01.2002. Therefore, the tenant committed default in payment of rent. 10. With regard to bona fide requirement the petitioners intend to run a kirana and general stores for their livelihood. The trial court has not accepted their bona fide requirement and that finding is final. In view of the fact that the respondent/tenant denied the title of the petitioners without there being justifiable ground, the respondent is liable for eviction. As the respondent had not adduced any evidence that he had paid the rents, both the courts held that the respondent committed default in payment of rents. Hence, the findings of the courts below need no interference by this Court as the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. 11. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Since 1985 the respondent is said to have been residing in the premises in question, he has to make an alternative accommodation for securing premises. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is reasonable to grant five months time from today to vacate the premises in question. The respondent shall vacate the premises on or before 06th May 2011. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: December 06, 2010. BSB