Mosa Tata Rao vs Kadiyala Satyavathi and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Ram Gopal, Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Smt. Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, Counsel representing the 1st respondent.

2 The 1st respondent, Kadiyala Satyavathi, hereinafter referred to as "landlady" filed R.C.C. No. 3/2001 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada praying for eviction of the tenant/Revision petitioner herein/1st respondent in the R.C.C. on the ground of wilful default and on yet another ground of personal requirement. The 2nd respondent herein who is also the 2nd respondent in the aforesaid R.C.C. is the son of the landlady who is added as a proforma party. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of PW-1, RW-1 and RW-2, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 and ordered eviction on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 1/2002 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the learned Judge confirmed the findings and ultimately dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same the present civil revision petition is preferred.

Sri Ram Gopal, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would submit that on the aspect of wilful default the pleading is vague and the specific months of commission of wilful default had not been clearly pleaded and PW-1 also had not deposed on this aspect clearly and in the light of the vague pleading and vague evidence both the Courts below erred in ordering eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Counsel also would explain that the landlady is a rich lady and this is a small premises where the tenant is using the same for residential and non-residential purpose and there is no bona fide requirement on the part of the landlady and on this ground also the findings recorded by both the Courts below in this regard may have to be set aside. The learned Counsel also advanced yet another argument that inasmuch as it is a composite lease, the eviction petition as such is not maintainable. The Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

Per contra, Smt. Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/petitioner in the eviction petition/landlady would maintain that the plea of composite lease had not been taken at all. Apart from this aspect of the matter in the absence of the plea and in the absence of evidence in this regard such contention cannot be permitted to be raised at the stage of revision before this Court. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the evidence of PW-1 is clear and strong reliance was placed on Ex.A-3, certified copy of the account ledger extract from 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 till 8-11-2000 and would contend that this would clearly go to show that there is a deliberate, conscious and wilful default committed by the tenant in payment of rents and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below in this regard. The learned Counsel also would contend that the landlady is sufficiently old and she requires the premises bona fide for her residence and hence in the light of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, eviction may have to be ordered. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her contentions.

The landlady filed R.C.C. No. 3/2001 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada wherein it was pleaded as hereunder :

The petitioner and her son who is the 2nd respondent are the owners of the schedule property which came on partition. The husband of the petitioner Tatarao leased out the property to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- payable in the first week of succeeding month. The 1st respondent paid the rent irregularly to Tatarao who died on 9-7-1995 and before he died he and the petitioner demanded the 1st respondent to vacate the schedule property as it was required for personal occupation since they are not having any other residential house in Kakinada. The 1st respondent promised to vacate the same and filed O.S. No. 296/97 for injunction which was disposed of on 16-11-2000. From the date of filing of the suit, the 1st respondent was not paying the rent and when it was brought to the notice of the Court he was directed to deposit the rents in the Court. From November, 1996 till the date of the decree i.e., on 16-11-2000 he deposited Rs. 11,500/- only and committed default of six months rent. When demanded the petitioner had not paid the rents accrued subsequent to the decree and hence he is a wilful defaulter. The petitioner is in need of the schedule property for personal occupation and also issued a registered notice dated 11-12-2000 demanding the arrears also. The 2nd respondent is working in Cochin and therefore he is added as a proforma party.

The 2nd respondent-proforma party remained ex parte. The 1st respondent in the R.C.C., the present revision petitioner had resisted the matter by filing a counter. It was pleaded in the counter as hereunder :

There is no stipulation of time for payment of rent by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is paying the rent regularly. The 1st respondent never committed default in payment of rents to the landlord at any point of time. Sri Kadiyala Tatarao or the petitioner never demanded the 1st respondent to vacate the property as it was required for their personal occupation. The 1st respondent received a registered legal notice dated 16-12-1996 from Sri Kadiyala Venkata Krishnarao, who is the brother of late Sri Tatarao who stated in the notice that O.S. No. 135/95 is pending between the brothers for partition and asked the 1st respondent not to pay the entire rent to the petitioner and claimed l/3rd of the rent and started proclaiming that they will evict the 1st respondent and therefore the 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 296/97 for permanent injunction. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 784/97 along with the suit seeking permission to deposit the rents and 1st respondent was permitted to deposit the rents into the Court and he was regularly depositing the rents and there is no default. Subsequent to the decree, the monthly rents are being paid by the 1st respondent to the Counsel for the petitioner. The 1st respondent took lease of the schedule property in the year 1991. At that time the dwelling premises was damaged and it was not covered with bathroom and lavatory. Tatarao promised that he will construct a lavatory but he failed to do so. The 1st respondent also paid the house tax for the schedule property regularly from 1991 to 1994. The said amount was not deducted from the rents. The 1st respondent with the permission of Tatarao constructed latrines and bathrooms with his own money and that Tatarao promised to reimburse the same and he did not do so. The plea of the petitioner that she requires the schedule property for personal occupation is invented and she has no bona fide need of the disputed premises. The petitioner is residing with her son i.e., the 2nd respondent and therefore she does not require the schedule house for personal occupation. The petitioner also had a pucca terraced building at Visakhapatnam and after receipt of notice the 1st respondent personally approached the petitioner and asked her to co-operate with him in maintaining cordial relations. There is no cause of action for the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the 1st respondent is not liable for eviction.

On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following Points for consideration :

Whether the 1st respondent committed default in payment of rent?

Whether the schedule property is needed for personal occupation ?

Before the Rent Controller, the landlady examined herself as PW-1 and the tenant examined himself as RW-1 and examined yet another witness RW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.B-1 to B-9. Ex.A-1 is the registered partition deed. Ex.A-2 is a certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 296/97. Ex.A-3 is a certified copy of the account ledger extract on which strong reliance was placed. Ex.A-4 is the notice. Ex.A-5 is postal acknowledgement. Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-8 and also A-9 are the relevant portions of the depositions in O.S. No. 296/97. As against this, the tenant relied upon Ex.B-1 letter written by K. Tatarao to him. Ex.B-2 is yet another letter. Ex.B-3 is a slip sent by Tatarao. Ex.B-4 is the tax receipt. Ex.B-5 is the receipt passed by the petitioner. Exs.B-6 to B-9 are the rent receipts. The learned Rent Controller after framing the Points for consideration commenced discussion from Para-7 and ultimately concluded at Para-11 and after recording findings held that the tenant committed wilful default and the landlady is entitled for the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement also. As against the same, R.C.A. No. 1/2002 was preferred on the file of Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge wherein the Appellate Court framed the Point for consideration as to "Whether there are any grounds to allow the Appeal or to set aside or modify the order and decree under Appeal" and discussed the Point at Paras 11 and 12 confirming the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal.

On a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded in the backdrop of the evidence available on record and also the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court is satisfied that the Revision Petitioner/tenant is making a futile attempt at the stage of Revision to put forth the plea of composite lease. Even otherwise this aspect may have to be always judged and viewed in the context of the purpose for which it had been actually taken and not the purpose for which the tenant had put the premises into use. When the evidence is not clear on that aspect the Revision Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such a plea in the absence of specific plea in this regard and in the absence of evidence. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner need not be discussed at length in this regard.

The next aspect which had been argued at length is vagueness in the pleading relating to the period of default and also the findings recorded in relation thereto. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 it is clear and categorical that she had deposed about the default which had been committed which is well reflected by the documentary evidence Ex.A-3 apart from the other evidence. Inasmuch as these findings are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the ground that there is no specific pleading when actually the wilful default commenced and the details of the months, the said findings cannot be disturbed by the Reivisional Court. Hence the said findings are hereby confirmed.

The next ground is bona fide personal requirement. It may be that the tenant might have put the premises into use both as residential and non-residential. But however this old lady/landlady is requiring the premises for her residential purpose and she made a categorical statement that she has no other accommodation and in the light of the evidence of PW-1 concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the said findings also need not be disturbed by this Revisional Court. On appreciation of the evidence, this Court is well satisfied that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below and findings had been arrived at on appreciation of the evidence available on record. Hence the civil revision petition being devoid of merit the same is hereby dismissed. However, inasmuch as it is stated that the tenant is carrying on some business, three months time is hereby granted to vacate the premises.