GANESHLAL Vs. NAJAMUNNISA BEGUM
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 21,1992

GANESHLAL Appellant
VERSUS
NAJAMUNNISA BEGUM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K D KRISHNA VS. P VENKAT RAO [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
SAIFULLA BASHA VS. SAKARAYS DRESSES, REP BY ITS PARTNER S SATYANARAYA [LAWS(APH)-2002-1-127] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ORAL ORDERS Respondents 1 to 6 in these two revisions have filed a petition R.C. 115/1986 in the court of the Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. Five respondents were impleaded in that petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original tenant by name Shankar Lal. Respondents 3 to 5 are the sub-tenants. The Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that the landlords have established that the tenant committed wilful default and ordered eviction. Against that an appeal R.A.No. 508/1988 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in R.C. 115/86 and respondent No. 4 therein before the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act i.e., Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate authority had also agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant had committed wilful default and therefore dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. 1611/91 is filed by the tenants whereas C.R.P. 176/91 is filed by one of the sub-tenants, who was also appellant before the appellate authority.
(2.)Earlier to this revision the landlord had filed petition R.C. 59/80 in the court of the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant Shankarlal on the ground that he had sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlord. During the pendency of that petition the tenant died. Therefore, since the premises in question is a non-residential premises and in view of the legal position, which was prevailing then, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground that the heirs of the tenant cannot continue to occupy the non- residential premises as tenant in view of the definition of 'tenant' under the Rent Control Act. Against that the heirs of the tenant carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority, who held following the later decisions that even the heirs of the tenant come within the definition of 'tenant' in respect of non-residential premises and so they are entitled to continue as tenants and allowed that appeal and also holding that there is no unauthorised subletting. Against that R.A. 29/85 was filed which was dismissed and against that order C.R.P. 271/86 was filed which was also dismissed.
(3.)Then the present petition RC. 115/86 was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The periods of defaults are given as below : B.6.23005_1.htm It may be noted from the above dates that the first period covers up to 30-4- 1985 and the subsequent periods of payments are only from 1-5-85 to 31-8- 85. As I have stated above both the Rent Controller as well as appellate authority have found that there is wilful default committed by the tenant and ordered eviction.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.