IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4 9 1 2 OF 2009 Between: A. Bhadraiah (died) Per LRs. Petitioners 2 to 6 … Revision Petitioners V/s. K. Eswaramma, w/o Late K. Nagabhushnam, R/o H.No. 1-8-779, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Manu THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4 9 1 2 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 21- 8-2009 passed in R.A.No. 39 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order and decree dated 23-01-2007 passed in RC.No. 57 of 2003 by the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Civil Revision Petition hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in RC.No. 492 of 2002 i.e., respondent will be referred to as the petitioner and revision petitioner will be referred to as the respondent. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlady filed petition under section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in rental payments and that she bonafidely requires the petition schedule mulgi for the business of her son. It is stated that she is the landlady of the petition schedule mulgi and the respondent is a tenant. The mulgi was bequeathed in her favour by her husband late K.Nagabhushnam by will dated 12-2-1997. It is stated that the respondent is the tenant in the mulgi since 01-1-1975 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- payable on or before 5th of each month as per English Calender. It is stated that the mulgi was let out by her husband in favour of respondent under rental agreement dated 01-1-1976 valid for 11 months. After expiry of the period of tenancy, the respondent agreed to abide by the terms of the said rental agreement and the husband of the petitioner and the first respondent continued the tenancy on periodical increase of monthly rent and the present rent is at Rs.500/- per month fixed in the month of December 1994. It is stated that the payment of monthly rents were entered in two small dairies, one for the record of late Sri K.Nagabhushnam and another for the record of the respondent. The first respondent paid rents for the petition schedule premises on 18-11-1999 and at last failed to pay rents even after the demands made by late Sri K. Nagabhushnam. After the death of late K.Nagabhushnam also the respondent failed to pay the rents for the mulgi and the respondent owes a sum of Rs.20,500/- as arrears of rent for 41 months from December 1999 to May 2003. It is stated that the petitioner caused issuance of layer’s notice dated 23-5-2003 but the respondent did not clear rental arrears and failed to vacate the schedule premises and did not reply to the notice. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a wilful defaulter in payment of rents and liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises. The husband of the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the mulgi during his life to enable his younger son K. Praveen Kumar to start his business but the respondent failed to vacate the petition schedule mulgi with malafide and dishonest intentions. According to the petitioner, her younger son is carrying on business in a rented premises and his landlord is requesting to vacate the same and the mulgi in which the said K.Praveen Kumar is carrying on business is enlisted for demolishing for road widening purposes. Further it is stated that the petition schedule mulgi is suitable for the business of gold smith of the petitioner’s son. It is also stated that the petitioner does not own any other non-residential building in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the petitioner bonafidely requires the mulgi for the business of her son. It is also stated that during the pendency of the case the respondent No.1 had expired and the petition was amended seeking direction for eviction of the respondent No.1 and his legal heirs. 4. The respondent No.1 entered his appearance and filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner in her petition. It is averred that during the pendency of the matter, the first respondent died and respondents 2 to 6 were brought on record and respondents 2, 5 and 6 were set exparte. However, the memo was filed adopting the counter of first respondent for respondents 2 to 4. The respondents admitted that they are the tenants in the petition schedule premises and as per respondents they have paid rents regularly without any default to the husband of the petitioner till November 1999 and when the husband of the petitioner expired the respondent No.1 was paying rents to the son of the petitioner from December 1999, as per the direction of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s eldest son was receiving rents on behalf of the petitioner as per her instructions. It is averred that the respondent paid rent till May 2003 to the eldest son of the petitioner, who made an entry in the note book maintained by the respondent but the eldest son of the petitioner, Sri Tirumala Rao, returned Rs.500/- rent for the month of May 2003 and requested the respondent to pay the rents to the petitioner directly by money order. It is averred that the respondent sent rent of Rs.500/- by way of money order to the petitioner but the same was refused by the petitioner without any reason. It is averred that the petitioner refused to receive the money order sent for the months of May, June and July 2003. According to respondent, the present case has been filed to harass the respondent and the respondent has filed a petition under section 11 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for deposit of rents from May 2003 onwards. Further it is averred that the respondent is not wilful defaulter in payment of arrears of rent of Rs.20,500/- from December 1999 to May 2001. It is averred that the respondent has paid Rs.50,000/- as deposit as per the instructions of the petitioner, which was acknowledged by the eldest son Sri Tirumala Rao. It is also averred that the petitioner does not require the petition schedule mulgi bonafidely for her son’s business and as per the respondent the requirement of the petition schedule mulgi is not bonafide and intended only for the purpose of evicting the respondent. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival contentions, the trial court framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that she requires the petition schedule premises for bonafide self occupation for the business of her son ? (3) To what relief ? 6. To substantiate her case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and Exs.X1 to Ex.9. As against two letters under Exs.X7 and Ex.X8 being marked and received in evidence, the respondent filed CRP.No.4450 of 2005 before the High Court, which was allowed and setting aside the orders of the trial court of receiving the said letters in evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not consider the same in the present case. In the absence of Exs.X7 and X8, Ex.X9 postal cover has no evidentiary value. On behalf of respondents RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. 7. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Additional Rent Controller answered all the above points in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and allowed RC.No.57 of 2003 by an order dated 23-1-2007 which was filed under section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in rental payments and that she bonafidely requires the petition schedule mulgi for the business of her son and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule mulgi to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. 8. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23-1-2007 passed in RC.No. 57 of 2003 by the Additional Rent Controller, the respondent filed RA.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, contending that the landlady has limited right under a will and she has right only to enjoy the rents but no right has conferred upon her to see the eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule mulgi and that her contention of bonafide requirement of the petition schedule mulgi for her younger son’s business is only to evict him from the petition schedule mulgi. Hence prayed to set aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 9. On the other hand, the contention of the landlady is that she became the absolute owner by virtue of will executed by her husband and that the tenant has no right to deny the same. She further contended that it is for her to decide as to which premises is suitable for her son’s business. Moreover, her requirement includes the requirement of the family members and that her younger son is being carrying on business in a rented premises and filed Ex.X1 to Ex.X9 and also examined PW.2 to prove the ground of bonafide requirement. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, perusing the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant through judgment dated 21-8-2009 in RA.No. 39 of 2007 and confirmed the impugned order passed by the trial court, holding that when once the landlady proved her bonafides, it is for the tenant to prove that there is malafides on the part of the landlady and in the absence of any evidence, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the requirement of the landlady is bonafide and the tenant is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule mulgi and further directed the tenant to vacate and handover petition schedule mulgi to the landlady within two months from the date of judgment. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant. 12. Though at the hearing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-tenant has raised several contentions but this court suggested the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that sufficient time will be granted to the revision petitioner-tenant to vacate and handover the petition schedule premises. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant also fairly concedes and sought reasonable time to vacate the petition schedule premises. 14. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant, on perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, concurrent judgment of both the courts below and the undertaking furnished by the revision petitioner praying this court to grant six months time to vacate the petition schedule premises, bearing No. 1-5- 55, Ward No.1, Circle No.7, Dhan Bazaar, Secunderabad, this court deems fit and proper to grant six months time and further directed the revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover the same on or before 30-06-2010 to the respondent-landlady, failing which the respondent-landlady is at liberty to get vacate the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises by due process of law and if necessary seek police aid. However, the revision petitioner is further directed that he shall not renew his request hereafter seeking further extension of time to vacate the petition schedule premises. 15. As a sequel to the dismissal of the main Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No. 6742 of 2009, which has been filed seeking to grant stay of petitioner’s eviction from the petition schedule premises bearing No. 1-5-55, Ward No.1, Circle No.7. Dhan Bazaar, Secunderabad, pursuant to the judgment dated 31-8- 2009 passed in RA.No. 39 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 23-1-2009 passed in RC.No. 57 of 2003 by the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, is hereby dismissed as infructuous. 16. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 04-12-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4 9 1 2 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No. 8 3 Date: 04-12-2009 Computer No. 43 Court Master : I s L