JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)SMT. Ravula Neelamma represented by her G. P. A. holder Sri Bala mallesh, filed the present revision petition under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) aggrieved by the order of eviction made on the ground of wilful default in R. C. C. No. 345 of 1998 on the file of Second Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad as confirmed in R. A. No. 2 of 2001 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
(2.)THE respondent in the CRP is the landlord. Hereinafter the parties would be referred to as the landlord and tenant for the purpose of convenience. The landlord, as the owner of the premises in question filed the R. C. C. No. 345 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad praying for eviction stating that he purchased the property by virtue of Registered Sale deed dated 23-12-1996 from sri K. Pandit and the revision petitioner even by that time was the tenant of the vendor of the landlord and after the registration of the sale deed, the tenancy was attorned orally in the first week of January, 1997. The specific stand taken by the landlord is that the tenant had fallen arrears of rent from January 1997 till the date of the eviction petition @ Rs. 125/-per month. It is also the case of the landlord that despite the fact that the landlord had been demanding rents she avoided payment of rents intentionally and not satisfied with the same she filed a suit O. S. No. 1893 of 1998 for injunction before VIII Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and thus the tenant has been harassing him and in such circumstances on the ground of wilful default the eviction petition R. C. C. No. 345 of 1998 as aforesaid was filed.
(3.)THE tenant filed a lengthy counter denying the allegations and taking specific stand that she had been paying rents to the original landlord regularly and the original landlord last collected rents upto november 1996 and the further specific stand is that original owner had been receiving rents once in six or seven months or even once in year and inasmuch as the original landlord did not turn up to collect rents she approached him for payment of rents, but he refused to receive the rents. It was further stated that when there was threat of dispossession a suit for permanent injunction was filed and temporary injunction was obtained and several other details relating to the said litigation also had been narrated in the counter. Further specific stand was taken that there was no attornment of tenancy prior to the event aforesaid and in view of the same the tenant remitted the rents by money order on 12-5-1998 from December, 1996 to May 1998, but the same was refused and she also issued notice under Section 8 of the Act and the same was refused and she has narrated the other details also.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.