Section 10(2)(I) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act - defaulted in payment of rents. = Admittedly, the tenants have not paid the fair rent as fixed by the Court below at Rs.1250/- from 10.7.2006 on wards, which would clearly establish that the tenants have committed willful default in payment of rents to the landlord. Mere payment of original rent of Rs.90/- per month is no ground to hold that the tenants have not committed any willful default. The appeal filed by the tenants against fixing of fair rent at Rs.1750/- was allowed by the appellate Court reducing it to Rs.1250/- per month, which was also not paid by the tenants. Hence the lower appellate Court held that there is clear willful default on the part of tenants in payment of rents.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

C.R.P.No.373 of 2013

Date: 1.2.2013

Between:

Smt.Rukmini and others.
Petitioners
And


Anil Ekbote (died) per L.Rs.
Mrs.Aparna Ekbote and others.
 Respondents










THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
C.R.P.No.373 of 2013
ORAL ORDER:
          This C.R.P. is filed questioning the order passed in R.A.No.222 of 2010 dated 20.11.2012 on the file of Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
          The revision petitioners are the tenants of the petition schedule property bearing H.No.4-2-825, Ramkote, Hyderabad consisting of three rooms including kitchen measuring about 300 sq.ft.  
The first respondent is the original owner, who filed R.C.No.49 of 2007 before the I Additional Rent Controlelr-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad under Section 10(2)(I) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for eviction of the tenants alleging that the tenants have defaulted in payment of rents.  

The Rent Controller while holding that the tenants have committed default in payment of rents, allowed the R.C. with costs and ordered for eviction of the tenants from the schedule property within one month from the date of the order.  
Aggrieved by the same, tenants preferred R.A.No.222 of 2010 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by order dated 20.11.2012 confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller.  Hence this revision.
          Admittedly, the tenants have not paid the fair rent as fixed by the Court below at Rs.1250/- from 10.7.2006 on wards, which would clearly establish that the tenants have committed willful default in payment of rents to the landlord. 
    Mere payment of original rent of Rs.90/- per month is no ground to hold that the tenants have not committed any willful default.  
       The appeal filed by the tenants against fixing of fair rent at Rs.1750/- was allowed by the appellate Court reducing it to Rs.1250/- per month, which was also not paid by the tenants.  
  Hence the lower appellate Court held that there is clear willful default on the part of tenants in payment of rents.  
In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, it cannot be said that the eviction order is illegal and unsustainable.  There are no grounds to revise the orders passed by the Courts below.  The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
          Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted more than three (3) months time i.e. upto 31.5.2013 to vacant and handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondents-landlords, subject to filing of undertaking before the Rent Controller within 15 days from today that they will deposit the entire arrears of rents within a period of four weeks from today and that they will handover vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.5.2013.    Failure to give such an undertaking, the respondents-landlords are at liberty to execute the decree.  There shall be no order as to costs. 
      

______________
V.ESWARAIAH, J

Date: 1.2.2013
DA


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH















C.R.P.No.373 of 2013




1.2.2013













Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.