Dismissed

Dhanalakota Gangadharam v. Dilip Kumar Kothatri

Telangana HC17 Sept 2010CRP/3901/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed tenant's civil revision challenging eviction for willful rent default after property sale. Landlord sought possession for bona fide requirement to demolish old structure for new business. Court upheld eviction with four-month extension to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; petitioner granted four months' time to hand over vacant possession.

Dhanalakota Gangadharam Vs Dilip Kumar Kothatri — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3901 of 2010

¶3

Between: Dhanalakoa Gangadharan

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

And Dilip Kumar Kothatri

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

This Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3901 of 2010

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

Unsuccessful tenant in the courts below filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P.Lease Buildings and Rents Control Act, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed in R.C.C.No.44 of 2007 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 19.01.2009, as confirmed by the impugned judgment in R.C.A.No.7 of 2009, dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

¶12

The respondent/landlord filed R.C.C., seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on willful default in payment of rents and he requires the schedule premises for his bona fide requirement for personal occupation, stating that the landlord purchased the property under a registered sale deed, dated 11.06.2007, from one Mudapaka Prakasarao and others, in which the petitioner was a tenant in the property bearing D.No.33-8-40 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,600/- payable on the 1^st of every succeeding month. After purchase of the property, the landlord addressed a letter to the tenant on 28.06.2007 informing his purchasing the property from Mudapaka Prakasarao and to pay the rent to him directly. Even after receipt of the said notice, the tenant failed to

¶13

pay the rent. As the property is 100 years old and in a dilapidated condition, the landlord wants to demolish the building and he wants to start new business of gold and silver in the property. Except the above premises, the landlord has no other premises. Hence he filed the above petition.

¶14

Petitioner/tenant filed a counter stating that he took the schedule property on lease from Mudapaka Prakasarao 38 years back and running business in the name of Balu Jewellers and admitted the present rent at Rs.1,600/- per month and that he is paying rent every month without any default. The said Prakasa Rao intended to dispossess him from the schedule property and brought into existence a collusive document in the name of the landlord/respondent herein and did not inform him about the alleged sale deed, but the landlord informed the said purchase of the property through a letter. He also filed O.S.No.896 of 2007 in I.A.No.1124 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada for interim injunction and obtained injunction. He deposited the rents for the months of June and July, 2007 in the account of Mudapaka Prakasarao on 22.08.2007 and paid rents for the months of August, September and October, 2007 to the landlord’s counsel and obtained receipt from him. As per the landlord’s requirement, the tenant deposited the rents for the months of November, December, 2007 and January, 2008 in the landlord’s account on 07.02.2008 and he has not committed any willful default.

¶15

The respondent/landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the petitioner/tenant he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 and B2.

¶16

The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the conduct of the tenant in depositing the rents in the account of the landlord’s vendor even after receipt of Ex.A2 letter, amounts to denial of title, as contended by the landlord’s counsel; that the tenant committed default in payment of the rents to the landlord; that the schedule property is in a dilapidated

¶17

condition which is 100 years old; that in the cross-examination of R.W.1 also he admitted that the schedule property is an old building and also in dilapidated condition and required repairs; and that in the absence of any plea, the petitioner/tenant cannot have any right of pre-emption as laid down under A.P.Tenancy Act giving preferential right to purchase the property as contended by him and accordingly ordered for eviction of the tenant from the schedule property.

¶18

On appeal being filed, the learned Senior Civil Judge confirmed the order of eviction, holding that no doubt the rents were deposited in the account of the vendor of the landlord on 22.08.2007 and the landlord is entitled to rent from 11.06.2007 to July, 2007; that in spite of his knowledge about the sale transaction, the tenant has not paid the rents payable on 1^st of every month; that the trial court correctly came to the conclusion that the tenant committed default in payment of rents and accordingly, dismissed the R.C.A., directing the tenant to give possession of the schedule property to the landlord within two months from the date of that order.

¶19

When the tenant himself admitted that he is paying rents to the vendor of the landlord, who in turn paid to P.W.1, that itself cannot be a ground to escape his liability, as he is admitting about non-payment of the rents from June to August, 2007. As the tenant himself admitted about non-payment of the rents and he committed default in payment of the rents and as the requirement of the premises by the landlord is a bona fide requirement, for demolition and construction for establishing his own business, the courts below rightly ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the schedule property.

¶20

The concurrent findings of facts reached by the courts below on appreciation of evidence do not suffer from any perversity, nor any evidence is adduced by the parties in reaching to the conclusion that the tenant has not committed any default in payment of the rents and the requirement of the landlord is not a bona fide requirement. In view of the same, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of

¶21

facts, recorded by the courts below.

¶22

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted four months time for handing over vacant possession of the schedule property, subject to his payment of rents on or before 1^st of every succeeding month. In default of payment of rents, it is always open for the landlord to execute the order of eviction.

¶23

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J

¶24

17^th September 2010 lmv

Dhanalakota Gangadharam v. Dilip Kumar Kothatri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakota Gangadharam v. Dilip Kumar Kothatri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajula Narayanareddy, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho, Kadapa I Town, Nalgonda

Naraharisetty Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. v.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

P.Ravi Varma(A-2) Vs Hanumanthu Rajagopala Rao

Venna Sai Ravi Taja Vs Chillimuntha Ramesh

Dommeti Ramakrishna, Vs The State of A.P.