K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, in CMA No. 45 of 1997 dated 22-12-1998.

( 2 ) IT is no longer in dispute before me that the suit accommodation is a non-residential building and the petitioner was a tenant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the children of the deceased late Rangaraju, respondent No. 5 is his wife and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are his brothers. The said Rangaraju had filed an application for ejectment of respondent Nos. 8 and 9, alleging that they were his tenants, on the ground of wilful default and bona fide need of the suit accommodation for starting new business after demolition of the suit accommodation and its re-construction, because it had become dilapidated. The petitioner got himself impleaded as a party to the case on the ground that he was the real tenant in respect of the suit accommodation. After examination of late Ramaraju, he expired and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were impleaded as applicants in his place. They did not adduce any further evidence. They had filed IA No. 5119 of 1996 for amending the petition, but it was rejected by Rent Controller on 11-3-1997.

( 3 ) THE Rent Controller on assessment of the evidence found that even with the death of the original applicant-Rangaraju, the bona fide need for the suit accommodation did not cease to exist and the applicants need bona fide the suit accommodation for starting a new business, and ordered the petitioner to vacate the suit accommodation. The Rent Controller had found that the petitioner is not liable to be ejected on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, but without success.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

( 5 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel of both sides, the revision petition has been heard on merits.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel of the petitioner has argued that the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that even with the death of original applicant-Rangaraju the need for starting a new business continued because late Rangaraju has specifically pleaded that he wanted to start his own business in pharmaceuticals as he has left his job. There is no evidence on record that respondent Nos. 1 to 7 ever desired to start business in pharmaceuticals or any other business. The appellate Court has wrongly relied on the case in V. V. Krishna Vara Prasad v. S. Suryarao and others, 1997 (I) ALT 84. On the other hand, learned Counsel of respondent Nos. l to 7 has contended that the suit accommodation belongs to the joint Hindu family consisting of respondent Nos. l to 7. The deceased-Ramaraju being eldest member of that family and Kartha of Hindu Joint family property and he has stated on oath that the family had decided to reconstruct the suit accommodation and then to start business and therefore the need of the accommodation was bona fide need of the joint Hindu family and not only for the benefit of the deceased-Rangaraju and therefore both the Courts have rightly found that the respondents-applicants need bona fide the suit accommodation for business purpose.

( 7 ) TRUE that in para 4 of the application it is mentioned that the deceased-Rangaraju being eldest male member of the family was managing the properties. But, on perusal of para 6 of the application it does not appear that the family wanted to demolish the dilapidated suit accommodation and to reconstruct it for the purpose of starting business for the benefit of the family. The reason is that in para 6 it is alleged that the deceased petitioner wanted to construct a pucca business complex as the building has become dilapidated and also wanted to utilise the premises for his own use. It has also alleged that he is young educated graduate and was employed for sometime in the pharmaceuticals and gave up the employment and wanted to take self-employment"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document