Parasmal Jain v. Malakatla Lakshmi Seshakumari & Ors.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3447 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision by the petitioner/tenant under Section 24 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order, dated 21.06.2010, dismissing the R.C.A.No.2 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The 1st respondent/landlady filed R.C.C.No.27 of 2006 contending that she is the owner of the petition schedule premises having purchased the same from Kandula Satyanarayana and Kandula Lakshmi, who became absolute owners under a registered sale deed, dated 16.11.1987. The petitioner/tenant attorned the tenancy in favour of the 1st respondent and has to pay rent from April 2002. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has not paid the rent from August, 2001 to March, 2002 to the vendor of the 1st respondent, and the rent due from April, 2002 at Rs.600/- per month has not been paid and he committed default. Instead of paying the rent, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.442 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, impleading the vendor of the landlady and obtained an injunction in I.A.No.1140 of 2002 on 19.04.2002 and thereby depositing the rents into the Court. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent, who is the husband of the 1st respondent, is carrying on business in the premises belonging to Guruju Bhaskararao under the name and style of Vijetha Tailors, as he has no other premises for bona fide requirement. Petitioner/tenant contested the above R.C.C., stating that he took major portion of the said building on lease in the year 1980 and by then Kandula Veeraraju was not alive. His wife Kandula Mangaraju was dealing with the property on behalf of all her family members. The portion of Kandula Veeraraju is situated in Nookalamma Temple Road, Suryaraopet, Kakinada. He has also stated that he took the portions marked in red and blue colours in the plan, appended to the counter, on lease in the year 1980 from Kandula Mangaraju. When Kandula Mangaraju requested the petitioner to vacate the portion of the leased premises, he vacated the same and surrendered possession of the blue marked portion to the 1st respondent. Consequently, the rent was re- fixed at Rs.600/- per month. In the year 1993, Kandula Managaraju began demanding enhancement of rent and also filed R.C.C.No.12 of 1994 against the tenant, which was subsequently withdrawn on the death of Mangaraju. Thereafter disputes arose between the sons of Mangaraju. Hence, he filed the above suit O.S.No.442 of 2002 for permanent injunction and filed I.A.No.1140 of 2002 and obtained interim injunction. On depositing the rents into the Court, notices of the deposits were served on the petitioners’ Advocate, who are defendants Nos.4 and 5 in the said suit. He paid the entire rents and there are no arrears also and he has no objection to attorn the tenancy for the two red marked rooms and to pay the rent. The Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, found that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent, as he started depositing the rent under Exs.B10 to B12, but they are also not within time and under Ex.B13 only he deposited the rents till December, 2008, so he cannot take advantage that he deposited advance rents. Further, the requirement of the landlady is bona fide and ordered for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court on re- appreciation of the entire evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the findings mainly on willful default. Even as per the case of the petitioner, he paid the rents to the vendor of the 1st respondent till August 2002. Subsequently, he deposited the rents in O.S.No.442 of 2002 at Rs.500/- per month after deducting an amount of Rs.100/- per month towards advance paid by him to the 1st respondent’s vendor. He deposited the rents in the said suit till the end of 2008 and subsequently in A.S.No.230 of 2008 and there is no due. He paid rent of Rs.500/- per month under Exs.B1 to B3. Exs.B4 to B8 are other receipts. The petitioner filed a memo into the court on 28.11.2005 under Ex.B9 regarding deposit of Rs.10,000/- towards rent on 23.04.2004 from 01.09.2002 to 30.04.2004 and filed a memo under Ex.B10 regarding deposit of rent for one year for the period of 2004 on 30.12.2005 and paid the rent under Ex.B11 on

21.08.2006. For the period of 2007 he paid rent on 27.08.2007 under Ex.B12 and for the period of 2008 he paid rent under Ex.B13. The suit is filed for grant of injunction restraining the defendants, from interfering with the possession of the appellant/petitioner, injunction is initially granted and later the same was dismissed under Ex.A5. The finding recorded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge clearly disclose that the petitioner was irregular in depositing the rents and deposited in lumpsum once in a year in the suit filed against the landlord and the respondents. By depositing the said rents once in a year, the respondent/landlady was prevented from withdrawing the amount, where the tenant committed default in payment of rents. The landlady further established the bona fide requirement of her husband for his tailoring business, where he was doing business in a rented accommodation. Both the courts below concurrently held that the tenant committed default in payment of rents and as the requirement of the landlady is bona fide, ordered eviction of the petitioner. No perversity or illegality is discernable to the findings so recorded by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority, warranting interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting two months time to the petitioner for handing over vacant possession, subject to his payment of rents. No costs. 20th August 2010 _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J