Telangana High Court
Babu Bhai vs Saleem Bin Amar Jaidi on 22 June, 2022
Author: B.Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
C.R.P.No.898 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order dated 23.02.2022, passed by the Rent Appellate Authority -cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019, whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 29.10.2019, in R.C.No.20 of 2013, passed by the Rent Controller - cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent is the landlord of the demised premises bearing H.No.8-1-63, Ahmedi Bazar, opposite to Shabuni Gudi, Nizamabad. The revision petitioner is the tenant of the said mulgi. The tenant filed R.C.No.28 of 1994 under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act for deposit of rents, which was allowed by order dated 09.10.1996, passed by the Rent Controller at Nizamabad.
Alleging that the rents are not being paid regularly and the demised premises is required for business purpose, the respondent/landlord initiated eviction proceedings by filing ::2::
R.C.C.No.20 of 2013 on the grounds of willful default and bona fide requirement. The eviction petition was allowed on the ground of willful default, by rejecting the ground of bona fide requirement vide order dated 29.10.2019, and directing the tenant to vacate the demised premises within thirty days. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant carried the matter in appeal i.e., R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 before the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 23.02.2022.
Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.
As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the issue of willful default was held to be proved as the revision petitioner failed to comply with Rule 5(4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, pursuant to order of deposit of rents in R.C.No.28 of 1994, by not intimating the deposit of rents, which is mandatory, to the landlord as per any of the mode specified in Rule 16 thereof. The learned Rent Controller recorded a categorical finding that no ::3::
proof is filed by the tenant to show that he has intimated deposit of rents to the landlord.
The learned Rent Appellate Authority also agreed with the finding arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order.
This Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant seeks reasonable time to vacate the demised premises.
In the circumstances, the revision petitioner/tenant is granted six months' time to vacate the demised premises from today. Out of the six months, for the first three months i.e., the first, second and third months, the revision petitioner/tenant shall pay the admitted rents and for the remaining three months i.e., the fourth, fifth and sixth months, he shall pay the rents @ Rs.5,000/- per month.
The revision petitioner/tenant shall file an undertaking within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ::4::
to the effect that he shall vacate the subject premises within a period of six months from today.
No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
_____________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 29-04-2022 LUR