Dismissed

Sabisetty Venkatarao, v. Padmanabhuni Durga Rao

Telangana HC26 Aug 2011CRP/1725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the Rent Controller's order confirming eviction under Section 10(2)(i) for willful default and Section 10(2)(v) for bona fide requirement for business. The Court held the lower appellate authority correctly appreciated that the tenant had alternative vacant commercial accommodation nearby.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed directing the floor-tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within six months from today.

Sabisetty Venkatarao, Vs Padmanabhuni Durga Rao — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1725 of 2011

¶3

Dated:- 2 6 th August, 2011

¶4

Between:Sabisetty Venkatarao

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

Padmanabhuni Durga Rao

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1725 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.14 of 2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge - cum - Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases At Visakhapatnam (‘the lower appellate authority’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 30.07.2010 passed in R.C.C.No.6 of 2005 by the Rent Controller – cum – IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (‘the Rent Controller’, for brevity), was confirmed.

¶12

2. The petitioner herein is the appellant/tenant and the respondent herein is the respondent/landlord of the premises bearing Door No.26-15-19 situated at Main Road, Town Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam-1 (petition schedule premises). For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Rent Controller.

¶13

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶14

The petitioner is the landlord of the petition schedule premises. He filed R.C.C.No.6 of 2005 before the Rent

¶15

Controller under Sections 10(2)(i), (iii), (v) and 3 (a) (iii) and (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (‘the Act’, for brevity), seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and for his bonafide requirement contending inter alia that the respondent obtained the petition schedule premises long back on monthly rent basis and the monthly rent for the petition schedule premises was Rs.50/-; that there is no lease deed between him and the respondent; that he used to pass receipts for the rents paid by the respondent; that the respondent committed default in payment of rents from October, 2003 onwards; that the respondent purchased a house in harbour approach road near the petition schedule premises and let out the ground floor for rent and he was living with his family in the upstairs portion; that he got issued registered notice dated 10.01.2004 demanding him to pay the arrears of rents from October, 2003 and the respondent, after receipt of the said notice on 14.01.2004, continued to pay rents to him regularly; that thereafter, the respondent stopped paying rents from June, 2004 and as such, the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents; that the respondent used to maintain the shop and spoiled the petition schedule premises and committed acts of waste in the premises; that the petition schedule premises is required for his self occupation for running business; that he got issued a legal notice dated 20.10.2004 to the respondent demanding him to vacate the petition schedule premises and to deliver vacant possession of the same; that after receipt of the said notice, the respondent got issued reply notice with false and baseless allegations; that

¶16

then, he filed the above referred R.C.C. for eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default and for his bonafide requirement.

¶17

4. The respondent/tenant contested the matter and filed counter denying all the averments of the petitioner. The respondent mainly contended that the father of the petitioner purchased the petition schedule premises from one Smt. B.Venkata Ratnamma and permitted him to continue the tenancy with an agreement on receiving Rs.50,000/- from the respondent as advance which carries no interest but to pay the same to the respondent while vacating the petition schedule premises; that though the rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.400/- per month and he has been paying the enhanced rent to the petitioner regularly, but the petitioner used to pass receipts for Rs.50/only; that the petitioner got issued a legal notice him with false allegations and to that notice, he got issued reply notice with real facts; that the petitioner refused to receive the rents when he paid in order to seek the relief of willful default in payment of rents; that when he questioned about his passing of receipts for lesser amounts of Rs.50/- while receiving rents @ Rs.400/- per month, the petitioner was quipping the issue without giving any proper reply and grew wild against him and developed evil idea to get him to vacate from the petition schedule premises in order to let out the same to third parties for more rent; that the petitioner wants to get him vacated from the petition schedule premises for no fault of him; that the petition schedule premises is not bonafidely required by the petitioner except

¶18

to let out the same to some third parties for higher rents.

¶19

5. Evidence was let in. On behalf of the petitioner/landlord, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and one P.Manikanth was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent/tenant, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced except examining himself as R.W.1.

¶20

6. The learned Rent Controller framed necessary issues for trial and holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents and that the respondent purchased the house nearby the petition schedule premises and let out the ground floor to some others and as such, he had alternative accommodation and that the petition schedule premises is required for the petitioner bonafidely, allowed the RCC and ordered eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority and the lower appellate authority, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. However, the lower appellate authority granted one month time to the respondent from the date of its judgment for vacating and handing over the petition schedule premises to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/tenant is under revision before this Court.

¶21

7. Though this C.R.P. is in interlocutory stage, since both the learned counsel agreed to dispose of the

¶22

main revision itself and advanced the arguments accordingly, this revision is being disposed of accordingly.

¶23

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/ tenant submitted that the lower appellate authority erred in holding that the respondent has to adduce rebuttal evidence with regard to the bonafide requirement. It is also submitted that the lower appellate authority ought to have seen that the premises acquired by the respondent is a residential one whereas the petition schedule premises is a commercial one and that the lower appellate authority ought to have seen that acquisition of the residential premises by the respondent does not bar him from continuing in nonresidential premises on rent.

¶24

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner supported the judgments of both the Courts below and submitted that there is nothing for this Court to interfere with the same.

¶25

10. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this revision are (1) whether the respondent/tenant has committed willful default in payment of rents to the respondent and if so, whether he is liable to be evicted; and (2) whether the petitioner/landlord bonafidely require the petition schedule premises and on that ground whether the respondent/tenant is liable to be evicted.

¶26

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the

¶27

landlord of the petition schedule premises and that he had let out the same to the respondent on monthly rental basis. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner sought the eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default, acts of waste and for his self occupation for running business in the premises. The respondent denied the same and as far as the aspect of requiring the petition schedule premises by the petitioner for his self-occupation is concerned, the respondent’s only contention is that the petitioner has been seeking to evict him for the purpose of letting out the petition schedule premises to third parties for higher rents.

¶28

12. During the cross examination of the respondent (R.W.1), he has deposed as follows:-

¶29

“I took the schedule on lease by father of the petitioner to my father for Rs.25/- per month did not file any document in the court to show that we gave Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner ad advance. Further stated that it is true I used to pay rent for the schedule premises to the petitioner since 1996 as schedule premises fell to the share of the petitioner. Further stated that it is true that I purchased house near by the schedule property and I let out my house of my ground floor and I am residing in the 1^st floor. At present my ground floor is vacant. It is true that schedule premises is situated in busy locality. It is true near by my house, liquor shops, medical shop and also bus stop are situated. It is true that I got mentioned in reply notice in Ex.A.4 if I acquire another shop I vacate the schedule premises.”

¶30

13. Thus, it is clear that the respondent

¶31

purchased a house nearby the suit schedule premises and had constructed a house and let out the first floor portion to other tenants and that the ground floor portion of that house is vacant at present. He had also admitted that there are liquor shops, medical shop and bus stop near his house. Thus, it is clear that the locality where the respondent/tenant had constructed his house is in commercial locality and admittedly, the ground floor of the said house is vacant. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent/tenant can use the same for running his business of pan shop. In view of the same, I hold that the lower appellate authority has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and I do not see any grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed directing the petitioner herein/tenant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent herein/landlord within a period of six (06) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

__________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶34

26^th August, 2011 Ivd/Bvv

Sabisetty Venkatarao, v. Padmanabhuni Durga Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabisetty Venkatarao, v. Padmanabhuni Durga Rao

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

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Smt. Ameena Khatoon ( died per LRs )

Pinjari Mahaboob Sab Vs Smt. Banu Bee

Fatimunnisa Begum , Bibijan Vs Noorjahan Begm

Noor Khan Vs G.Sambasiva Rao

O.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Vs Simma Simhachalam

Sri Balchand Agarwal (died per Lr) Vs Sri Nandlal Agarwal (died) per LRs RR-3 to 6