P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition has come up before us on a reference made by our learned brother T. N. C. Rangarajan J. , who felt that there is conflict between two decisions rendered by Justice Ramachandra Raju in Nagappa v. Krishnasa, 1971 (2) An. WR 141 and the decision rendered by Justice Venkatrama Sastry in Shankar Rao v. Ramakrishna Rao Hulsulkar, 1974 (1) APLJ (SN) 22; regarding interpretation of Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (b) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 hereinafter called the Act . Interpreting this provision, Ramachandra Raju J, observed the word instead occurring in clause (b) should be read as "in addition to"; while Justice Venkatrama Sastry felt the word means instead . Justice Venkatrama Sastry doubted the interpretation placed by Justice Ramachandra Raju and Justice Rangarajan shared the said doubt. Hence he made the reference.

( 2 ) BEFORE answering the reference, it is necessary to briefly narrate relevant facts which gave rise to this reference. The respondent-landlady filed an application for eviction of appellant on three grounds viz that the appellant has committed wilful default in payment of rent (ii) the appellant has used the building for the purpose other than for which it was let out viz. carrying on manufacture of candles and tailoring business in the premises when the premises was let out for residential purpose contrary to the agreement; (iii) and that the respondent seeks eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. Of course, both the Courts found that the first two grounds are not established by the respondent-landlady and ordered eviction on the third ground viz. respondent requires the premises for her personal requirement.

( 3 ) HERE again a few facts which are relevant for this ground have to be narrated. Respondent-landlady sought for recovery of premises for residential purpose of her fourth son. According to her, her fourth son was transferred to Repalle from Chimakurthi about four years back and he is living at Tenali along with his wife and attending his office by going to Repalle from Tenali daily. According to the respondent the house in which they are staying is not sufficient after her daughter-in-law started living with her fourth son in that house. Added to this apart from her fourth son and his wife, her fifth son who is recently married is also living with his wife. The house consists of only two rooms in the first floor and in the ground floor the respondent carried out some repairs and constructed two small rooms and in one tiled room, her fifth son is carrying on business in fancy goods and in the other one, they are dumping damaged articles.

( 4 ) THE admitted case of both the parties is that the respondent owns four houses at Tenali town and she is living in one of those houses; while her third son is residing in one house with his family which consists of three rooms and he is with his three children and the third house is let out to the appellant; while in the fourth house a Marwadi gentleman is residing as a tenant for running his business in the ground floor and using the first floor for his residence.

( 5 ) THE respondent examined herself as P. W. I. Her fourth son was examined as P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 is her fifth son. The appellant examined himself as R. W. 1. No documentary evidence was produced by both parties. Exa1 is the Pass Book of Syndicate Bank belonging to P. W. I. On the basis of the evidence, the Rent Controller as well as appellate Authority concurrently found that the requirement of the respondent is bona fide. Hence this revision.

( 6 ) THE Revision Petition itself is posted before us without framing a point for reference. We deem it appropriate that the revision itself should be disposed of by this order.

( 7 ) THE main question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether a landlord who has more buildings than one in the City/town/or Village and is in occupation of one su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document