Mrs. Jayanthi vs Mrs Rajeevi Rao

Jawad Rahim

These revisions are directed against the common order in Revision Rent Petition No. 8/2008, 9/2008 and 10/2008 in which the order of eviction passed In HRC. No. 22/2004, 25/2004, 24/2004 respectively were questioned by the tenants.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

From what the learned counsel have adverted to, it is seen that the respondent Smt. Rajeevi sought eviction of petitioners viz., Mrs. Jayanthi, (petitioner in RRP. No. 9/2003), Mr. Chandrashekhar (petitioner in RRP. No. 8/2008) and Smt. Sesamma (petitioner in RRP.10/2008) from the premises described in the schedule to each of the petition on the premise that she is the owner of the premises and they are tenants under her on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. That she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and in this regard, she had requested all the tenants to vacate in order to accommodate her three grown up sons and two daughters Sukanya and Yogitha as they were dependent on her. Her other sons Krishnaraj, Jeevan Kumar and Naveen Kumar and daughter Yogitha are to be provided with separate accommodation but she is unable to do as the tenants are still continuing. She further averred that Krishnaraj along with his wife and daughter as also her daughter Yogitha have no accommodation of their own. The eviction proceedings were resisted by Jayanthi, the petitioner in HRC. No. 25/2004 denying the jural relationship. She set up title in Chandrashekhar, the respondent in HRC. No. 22/2004 and they denied landlord''s requirement of the premises for own use and occupation consequent to which the learned trial Judge conducted enquiry in which the respondent/landlord examined Krishnaraj, her son as PW1 and placed reliance on 37 documents.

In HRC. No. 25/2004, Jayanthi (petitioner in HRRP. No. 304/2010) tendered evidence as RW1 and relied on one document Ex. R1 while in HRC. No. 22/2004, Chandrashekhar (petitioner in HRRP. No. 305/2010) tendered his evidence as RW1 and relied on one document Ex. R1. The learned trial Judge considering the evidence tendered by the respondent/landlord held it outweighed the petitioner''s evidence. The trial Judge also held existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and negated the objections raised by Jayanthi In the resultant position, the learned trial Judge accepted all grounds in the eviction petition and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Assailing it, they were in revision before the first revisional Court reiterating the same grounds which found no favour. The revision petition were disposed of by the common order impugned in this petition.

There is again reiteration of all the grounds urged before the trial Court in this Court also. However, counsel for the respondent/landlord has rightly drawn my attention to the fact that Chandrashekhar upon whom Jayanthi set up title has in his evidence admitted the respondent Smt. Rajeevi to be the owner and his landlord. In unequivocal terms, he admitted he was a tenant under her which evidence was enough to reject all contentions to the contrary urged by Jayanthi. Since Jayanthi had described Chandrashekhar as her landlord and since he had accepted respondent''s ownership, right title and interest of the learned trial Judge could not have recorded a finding other than the one recorded by him. Such a finding needs no interference and it is affirmed.

Regarding own use and occupation, the respondent/landlord''s evidence through PW1 supports her version. The learned trial Judge was right in accepting that evidence as a clinture to grant decree of eviction. It is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts and the scope in the third revision is undoubtedly very narrow. Suffice it to say that reasons assigned by the learned Judge and the first revisional Court show that the evidence has been examined in the correct perspective and the ultimate conclusion reached finds full support. Therefore no need for interference with the impugned order.

However, I am persuaded to accept request of the petitioner''s counsel that tenants are not financially very sound. They are eking livelihood from the menial jobs and sustaining the family members. Therefore, they require reasonable time. But the request made by them for grant of three years is undoubtedly unreasonable as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord.

Keeping in mind the fact situation in which both parties are placed, it is desirable to grant time to the maximum of eighteen months from new to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent/landlord subject to the tenants paying rents regularly.

In the result, these petitions fail, the order of eviction in HRC. No. 25/2004 and 22/2004 are affirmed. Consequently, the order passed in revisional Court in RRP. Nos. 9/2003 and 8/2008 is confirmed. The petitioners are directed to vacate the premises within 18 months from today. The time is extended by 18 months from today subject to clearing of all arrears of rent and paying current rent regularly as and when it accrues due without committing default. In case if there is any default for a consecutive period of two months, then the benefit of extension of time granted by this Court will lapse. They shall also file an undertaking in the Registry of this Court undertaking to comply with the conditions so imposed.

At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner in HRRP. No. 305/2010 i.e., Chandradrashekhar has already been evicted and therefore, the petition has become infructuous submission is placed on record.

Submission of the learned counsel that rent has been deposited by Jayanth in the trial Court is placed on record. The respondent/landlord is permitted to withdraw the same.