Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 1151
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Tiruvaipati Ananda Babu - Appellant
Versus
Kanamarlapudi Manikyamma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-27-02
Headnote:
Civil Matter - Civil suit - A. P. Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control - Section 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (v), 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) , section 22 - Petitioners contends that judgment of learned rent Controller and as well as appellate authority is vitiated and suffers from an incurable legal infirmity - It is mainly contended by learned Counsel for petitioners that there is no evidence whatsoever of landlord in support of plea of bona fide requirement - It is submitted that first respondent (since deceased) is landlady and second respondent herein is her son and not owner or landlord of premises and he alone is examined as PW1 and same cannot be taken into consideration - Unable to accept submission made by learned Counsel for petitioners - PW1 is none other than son of first respondent who is no more - There is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship between parties - Learned Rent controller and appellate authority have not committed any irregularity in taking evidence of PWl and documents filed through him into consideration in order to conclude that requirement of respondents-landlords is a bona fide one - Such concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - Even otherwise findings are not vitiated for any reason whatsoever - It is however sought to be urged by learned counsel for petitioners that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between parties - A perusal of pleadings does not support point urged by learned Counsel for petitioners - No such plea has been taken - On other hand they have contended that they were paying rents regularly to respondents-landlords even after death of their father who was original tenant of premises – Held, Court not find any merit in this contention - Even in absence of eviction proceedings initiated against respondents-landlords they could have asked eviction of petitioners from schedule premises for their own occupation - Evidence of PW1 and material available on record in categorical terms would disclose nature of requirement of landlords for their own business purpose - . Findings so recorded by learned Rent Controller and confirmed in appeal by learned appellate Judge in this regard, in my considered opinion is not vitiated - Requirement of respondents-landlords is a bona fide one - Mere fact that their application against order of eviction from premises where they are at present carrying on their business is pending in Supreme court is of no consequence and has no relevance - Respondents always could have asked for eviction of petitioners herein and for recovery of possession for establishment of their own business - Petitioners cannot compel respondents- landlords to continue their business in same premises - Choice is that of landlords - Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction normally does not interfere with such concurrent findings and no exceptional cause as such is made out requiring this court to deviate from said normal rule - Findings recorded by learned Rent controller and as confirmed in appeal by learned appellate authority cannot be characterized as perverse and they are not vitiated for any reason - Civil revision Petition dismissed
( 1 ) TENANTS are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition filed under section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act ). Respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition under Section 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (v), 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) of the Act seeking the eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule non-residential premises. It is averred that the monthly rent payable in respect of the premises is Rs. 650/- which is payable at the end of every tenancy month. Originally the father of the petitioners herein was the tenant and after his demise the petitioners continued in the said non- residential premises as the tenants. It is case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners did not pay or tender the rents for the months of April and May, 1990 even up to 31-5-1990. On 16-6-1990 a notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. The petitioners thus committed wilful default in payment of rents is the case set up by the respondents-landlords. It is also their case that they belong to a trading family and the second respondent intended and capable to do fancy goods business and such business was run by the father of the second respondent for half a century. It was pleaded that the second respondent is the sole earning member and he is looking after the present business under the name and style of jayalakshmi General stores in a rented premises belonging to n. Panduranga Vithal. The landlord filed eviction petition in R. C. C. No. 248 of 1983 and the same was allowed on the ground of sub-lease. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against which the respondents preferred an appeal in R. C. A. No. 368 of 1987. It is under those circumstances, the respondents-landlords set up the plea of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for carrying on their own business. It is also the case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners have secured an alternative accommodation and therefore, their eviction from the premises would not result in any injustice.
( 2 ) THE petitioners filed their counter denying all the averments and allegations made in the petition. They have pleaded that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rents. The respondents herein have filed the eviction petition in order to seek enhancement of rent. They have denied of securing any alternative accommodation for themselves. It is also pleaded by them that the requirement of the premises by the respondents-landlords is not a bona fide one.
( 3 ) A perusal of the pleadings would reveal that eviction petition has been filed mainly on three grounds, namely; (i) wilful default in payment of rents by the tenants: (ii) bona fide requirement of the landlords for their own business purpose; and (iii) that the tenants have secured alternative accommodation for themselves.
( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioners herein was the original tenant and the petitioners continued as the tenants after the demise of their father and the relationship of landlord and tenant continued between the parties. The quantum of rent payable by the petitioners is also admitted.
( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the plea of the respondents that the petitioners herein have committed default in payment of rents. The learned Rent controller found that issue in favour of the petitioners and accordingly held that the petitioners have not committed any default whatsoever and much less any wilful default in payment of rents.
( 6 ) THE learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the need of the premises by the second respondent herein for establishing his business is a bona fide one. The learned Rent Controller noticed that the respondents have come from a well known business family. It is further found that the second respondent s father established
