Dismissed

Chunduru Rama Rao v. Munaga Ademma

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024CRP/482/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against appellate eviction of tenant from shop premises on Section 10-C grounds of widowed senior-citizen landlord. Court upheld that Section 10-C grants immediate possession irrespective of statutory grounds, non-examination of landlord is immaterial, and dismissed the petition giving four months to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Four months' time granted to tenant to vacate, subject to payment of entire arrears of rent; no costs; miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Chunduru Rama Rao Vs Munaga Ademma — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

ON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶2

C.R.P.No.482 of 2016

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The present civil revision petition is filed under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). The Petitioner herein is the tenant and the deceased respondent had filed RCC.No.59 of 2013 seeking eviction of the petitioner under section 10 (2) (i), 10(2) (v), 10(3)(a) (iii) and 10-C of the Act.

¶5

The parties are being referred to as per their original nomenclature before the Rent Controller.

¶6

In the petition filed in support of R.C.C, it was pleaded that the tenant had taken the suit schedule shop in or about 1978 and that the rent being paid as on the date of petition was Rs.1,600/- per month. The landlord pleaded that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rents from January, 2013

¶7

onwards intentionally. Apart from that, the eviction was

¶8

¶9

also sought on the ground of personal occupation as the daughter-in-law of the petitioner intended to start the business in the petition schedule property, where the tenant was doing business.

¶10

In the counter filed by the tenant, it was pleaded that they are doing business in the name and style of Sree Sashank Medicals and contended that the tenant had issued notice on 28.03.2013 seeking details of account number of the landlord to deposit the rent as the rents tendered by the tenant through money order for the months of January and February were refused by the landlord. Further, it was pleaded that the application has been filed only when the tenant refused to enhance rent of Rs.5,000/- and the so-called business of the daughter-inlaw cannot be a ground for eviction on the ground of personal occupation as she is living independently with her husband i.e son of landlord and that she cannot be considered as a member of the family. It was also pleaded that the tenant had paid the rent by way of cheque during the pendency of the proceedings and there are no grounds for maintaining the eviction petition.

¶11

¶12

5. The trial Court framed issues as under:

¶13

Whether the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents from January, 2013?

¶14

Whether the petitioner requires the schedule premises bonafidely for her personal occupation to start business by her daughter-in-law?

¶15

Whether the respondent secured alternative accommodation as pleaded by the petitioner?

¶16

Whether the petitioner being widow and old age of 66 years, as such she is entitled for immediate possession of schedule property>

¶17

To what relief?

¶18

The trial Court on issue No.1 opined that there was

¶19

no wilful default as alleged. Similarly, the issue of personal occupation was negatived and the eviction on the ground that the petitioner is a widow and senior citizen was also negatived by the trial Court. The landlord thereupon filed RCC.MA.No.13 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada under section 20 of the Act. The lower appellate Court by referring to Section 10-C of the

¶20

¶21

Act opined that the landlord is entitled for immediate possession of the premises. On that sole ground, the RCCMA was allowed.

¶22

During the pendency of the present revision, the original landlord had expired and respondent No.2 was brought on record as legal representative as per Court order dated 13.12.2013 vide I.A.No.3 of 2023. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of the lower appellate Court is erroneous and that the requirement of landlord under section 10-C of the Act is not bona fide apart from the fact that there is more suitable vacant space for shop in the premises. The Learned counsel for the respondent Sri GL Nageshwara Rao argued in support of the order of the lower appellate Court.

¶23

The issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the order of eviction passed by the lower appellate Court is correct and in tune with the statutory provisions.

¶24

¶25

9. The lower appellate Court had relied on section 10-C

¶26

of the Act for ordering eviction and the provision reads as

¶27

under:

¶28

10C. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow:. - (1) Where the landlord is:

¶29

(a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband;

¶30

(b) a handicapped person and the premises let out by him;

¶31

¶32

is required for use by him or her or for his or her family or for any one ordinarily living with him or her as the case may be for use he or she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises.

¶33

(2) Where the landlord referred to in subsection (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one residential and one nonresidential premises each chosen by him.

¶34

¶35

As extracted above, a widow, a handicapped person and senior citizens aged about 65 years are given special preference under the Act and they would be entitled for immediate possession of the premises. In the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the landlord was a widowed lady and a senior citizen as on the date of the institution of the RCC for eviction. The above extracted provision of the Act enables the landlord to seek immediate possession both as a widow and as well as a person aged more than 65 years. This is notwithstanding the statutory grounds on which the eviction can be sought.

¶36

The Section 10 A,B and C were introduced into the Act vide Amendment Act 17 of 2005 to obviate the difficulties faced by landlords who are socially challenged. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that immediate possession to the named class of persons therein and their requirement was considered by the legislature to be of paramount importance than that of the tenant. However, inspite of the legislation, the delay in eviction as in this case of more than 10 years seems to be inevitable.

¶37

¶38

In view of the exceptions provided under the Act, the order of the lower appellate Court cannot be faulted. The lower appellate Court had relied upon a judgement of this Court in Smt. G.Venkatamma (died) per L.R., G.Narasimha Rerddy v. Dr. Vijay Chandra Mathur¹ ,

¶39

whereunder, it was opined that there was no necessity to examine the landlord as the son of the landlord was already examined and he had deposed as a family member and about the requirement of the schedule premises for his wife.

¶40

In the circumstances of this case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the landlord for not deposing before the trial Court. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the tenant that the landlord is not a widow or a senior citizen and in the absence of dispute to that fact, the non-examination of the landlord is of no material value. It is also not the case of the tenant that the landlord is not seeking for eviction in which case the non-examination is not material. As regards the suitability of the premises

¶41

1 (2014) 1 ALD 347

¶42

¶43

contended by the tenant, it is too well settled that the issue or suitability is only for the landlord to decide and not for the tenant to dictate and therefore, the plea with regard to the suitability is negatived.

¶44

Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the lower appellate Court and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the tenant is granted a time of four (4) months from today to vacate the premises subject to payment of entire arrears of rent. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶45

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J

¶46

Date: 12.01.2024 KLP

Chunduru Rama Rao v. Munaga Ademma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunduru Rama Rao v. Munaga Ademma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koti Indrani Vs K Nagarani Raniatradha

Mondiatyarava Krishna Murthy and Another Vs Mo.Diatyarava Bhaskara and 9 Others

Kopparthi Venkata Satya Ravindra Tagore Vs Thammisetti Venkanna

Buddala Nirmala Reddy Vs Bobbili Jagannaikulu

B Narsimhappa Died by His Lrs and 2 Others Vs K Narayanappa, Ananthapur Dist

Sri Kolipakula Steels Corporation, Vs Chennuri Babu Rao