Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 183
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Jalal and Sons - Appellant
Versus
Sita Bai (Died) - Respondent
Decided On : 02-20-01
Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - If landlord is living with members of his family, eviction of tenant can be sought for purpose of business of such relative - whether such relative is dependent on landlord or not, only a relevant consideration but cannot be a basis for denying the claim.
Held : P.Ws 1 and 2 proved all the requirements needed for seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of non-residential premises. Not only the tenant did not specifically deny by filing additional counter in the main case but he did not also lead any evidence to contradict the landlords contention that they bona fide require the suit premises for carrying on business by the third petitioner.
In this case, petitioner No. 3 is son of petitioner no. 2 and grandson of petitioner No. 1. All of them are living together. Both P. Ws. 1 and 2 have spoken to about the bona fide requirement of carrying on business as pleaded in paragraph 7 (a) of the petition. Further, it has come in the evidence that the third petitioner started business in October, 1985 whereas the eviction petition was filed in January, 1985. As there was sufficient basis in the pleadings which was introduced by way of amendment, even if the petitioner No. 3 does not file separate amendment application, claiming bona fide requirement after he was added as petitioner in Rent Control Case, as per section 24 of the Act it does not make any difference. In any event, under Section 22 of the Act, as already noticed, the evidence led before the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority cannot be reassessed by the High Court.
The power of the High Court under section 22 of the Act is to examine the legality and regularity and propriety of the order with reference to the grounds taken and urged before the learned Rent controller or before the appellate authority. These grounds were not specifically taken nor urged before the learned Rent controller or before the learned Additional chief Judge, who decided the appeal. Therefore, the tenant cannot be permitted to raise all these grounds at the stage of revision. In any event, after having considered the rival contentions in the light of the oral and documentary evidence and elaborate orders passed by the learned Rent controller and the Appellate Authority, it must be held that the order of eviction does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or impropriety. Sita Bai required the suit mulgi for bona fide requirement of carrying on business by petitioner No. 3 and to that effect there are sufficient pleadings and evidence, which has not been effectively opposed with reference to the provisions of the Act. The tenant has been in occupation of a suit mulgi admeasuring 15 x 60 since 1930 paying rent of Rs. 130. 00 per month and when the true owner desires to carry on his business which he admittedly is carrying on in a rented premises elsewhere it is only reasonable to order eviction.
( 1 ) IN this tenant s revision under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ), the first petitioner is the proprietary concern and the second petitioner is proprietor of the first petitioner (hereinafter compendiously called as tenant ). The tenant is aggrieved by the order of the Court of Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, dt. 24-3-2000 in R. A. No. 47 of 1995, confirming the eviction order passed by the Court of III Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad, in R. C. No. 1084 of 1986 dt. 31-12-1994. The order of the appellate authority is impugned on the ground that the same is vitiated by irregularity and illegality. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Rent control Case.--
( 2 ) THE tenant is running business in the name and style of M/s. Jalal and Sons. The tenant was inducted in 1938. The tenant runs a watch repair and sales shop in suit mulgi bearing premises No. 5-8-543. The shop admeasures 15 x 60 and is situated in busy commercial area of Hyderabad, known as Abid Road. Originally, lease was obtained by late Syed Jalaluddin, the father of the present proprietor from late sri G. Ramachar Joshi, who is the husband of Sita Bai, who succeeded to the property after the death of Ramachar Joshi. Be that as it may, Sita Bai and her adopted son, madhavacharya Joshi (hereafter called the landlords ) filed R. C. No. 1084 of 1986 on 31-1-1985 seeking eviction of the tenant on two grounds; that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the tenant is guilty of acts of waste and damage. In March, 1987 the landlords filed an application being I. A. No. 188 of 1987 for amending the rent control petition. By the amendment they raised two additional grounds; that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1985 till February, 1987 and that the premises in question is required for carrying on business in readymade garments and hosiery by Anand Joshi, who is the grandson of Sita Bai and son of madhavacharya Joshi. The tenant opposed this application inter alia denying the necessity for such amendment and also denying the allegation that the premises is required for personal occupation of landlords for the business of Anand Joshi. The amendment was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and paragraphs 6 (a) and 7 (a) were added in the original petition. On 23-8-1988 Sita Bai died. Therefore, Madhavacarya Joshi, who is the second petitioner in the Rent Control Case filed I. A-No. 704 of 1988 under Section 24 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (hereafter called the Rules ) praying for leave to amend and add Anand Joshi and Pranesh joshi, the two sons of Madhavacharya Joshi, as petitioners 3 and 4 in the main eviction case. The basis for such prayer is a Will alleged to have been executed by Sita Bai on 2-10-1987 bequeathing the premises to anand Joshi and Pranesh Joshi. The learned rent Controller allowed the application i. A. No. 704 of 1988 as no counter was filed, and, therefore, both the sons of madhavacharya Joshi were added as petitioners 3 and 4 in the Rent Control Case. The tenant filed additional counter on 12-12-1988 stating that petitioners 3 and 4 are not legal representatives of Sita Bai and that they are wrongly impleaded in the petition.
( 3 ) THE landlords filed another interlocutory application being I. A. No. 153 of 1991 seeking amendment of the petition by adding one more ground to the effect that the suit premises is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction under section 12 of the Act. This application was rejected. Therefore, the landlords filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the appellate authority who by order dated 23-12-1991 allowed the amendment. After unsuccessful attempt in C. R. P. No. 621 of 1992, which was dismissed by this Court on 26-2-1
