Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY
Laxmi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Yashoda Bai - Respondent
Decided On : 01-17-97
Wealth Tax Act – Section,5 (l) (iv) - Claim exemption from Wealth Tax - Money lending business - Court and arise out of one eviction petition they are clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment - These petitions are filed by the landlords who are widow sons and daughters who died against six tenants for eviction petition which was originally filed against fourteen tenants was allowed by learned Rent Controller and against the same seven tenants have preferred appeals successfully other seven tenants who have not preferred appeals have vacated the premises - Even among the seven tenants who have appealed one tenant has since vacated premises and that how landlords have preferred six C. R. Ps. against six tenants parties are referred to in judgment as arrayed in eviction petition particulars regarding the premises and the grounds of eviction as stated in eviction petition are given in tabular –Held, Appellate authority has not considered this point - He drew my attention to evidence material papers where he has deposed that one of his brothers respondent who got separated about five years back constructed house - In cross-examination he stated that house is named after their father - He asserted that all of them did not shift from present premises house - From this wants me to infer that the respondents have secured alternative accommodation Court afraid Court cannot agree with his contention - Merely because house is named after father does not become property all sons against respondent tenant deposed at page material papers that premises in apartment does not belong him and that his son is staying there as tenant with his family - He has admitted that he is having two telephone connections one Apartment - He admitted in cross-examination that he has shifted his phone from the suit premises to apartment and telephone directory his address is shown Apartment - He has four non-residential premises apart from the shop besides a residential double house bearing where his four undivided sons are residing - He says that he is using the suit premises for residential purpose only though earlier he stated that he carrying on business at premises Though he has denied in the cross-examination that he kept the suit premises lock and key he has clearly admitted that he has got residential and also non-residential premises besides the suit premises - He also stated that he has entered into an agreement of sale to purchase material papers admitting that telephone number standing name respondent one of the brothers which was in suit premises was shifted premises bearing where he is carrying on business - He denied that is carrying residential flats and shifted residence there - He has also denied that suit premises kept lock and key - Hence there is no material to hold that respondents have secured alternative accommodation – Petition allowed
( 1 ) AS all the C. R. Ps. are interconnected and are filed against the common judgment of the Appellate Court and arise out of one eviction petition, they are clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment. These petitions are filed by the landlords who are widow, sons and daughters of late Kishan Rao patangay who died on 2-11-1979, against six tenants for eviction. The eviction petition which was originally filed against fourteen tenants was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and against the same seven tenants have preferred appeals successfully. The other seven tenants who have not preferred appeals have vacated the premises. Even among the seven tenants who have appealed one tenant has since vacated the premises and that is how the landlords have preferred six C. R. Ps. against six tenants. The parties are referred to in the judgment as arrayed in the eviction petition. The particulars regarding the premises and the grounds of eviction as stated in the eviction petition are given in the tabular form below : c. r. p. no.
Respdt. No. in Eviction Petition.
Premises No. & nature of the building.
Grounds for Eviction.
4756/94
17 to 21
15-1-602 Residential
Bona fide requirement.
4757/94
4
15-1-595/5,6,7 & 8 Partly
residential and partly non-
residential
Bona fide requirement
and default in rent.
4758/94
15
15-1-595/18, 19 and 20 -Non-
residential
Bona fide requirement.
4759/94
5
15-1-595/9, 10 and 11 -partly
residential and partly non-
residential
Bona fide requirement
and default in rent.
4760/94
3
15-1-595/4 - non-residential
Bona fide requirement.
4761/94
8 to 13
15-1-595/15 &16 -residential
Bona fide requirement.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the eviction petition, the petitioners are the owners of the building bearing No. 15-1-595/1 to 15-1-595/21 and 15-1-602,15-1-602/1 and 15-1-602/2 situated at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The building consists of ground floor, first floor, second floor and two rooms in the third floor. Petitioners 1 and 3 are carrying on money lending business in a portion in ground floor bearing No. 15-1-595 and have residential building at Feelkhana. In respect of premises bearing No. 15-1-601, the petitioners have filed eviction case RC 31/77 against the tenant who is running business in the said portion. Petitioners 3, 7 and 8 are qualified doctors in medicine. Petitioner No. 3 is a post graduate in general medicine, while petitioner No. 7hasd. G. O. in addition to M. B. B. S. Similarly petitioner No. 8 is a doctor. Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 who were in Iran doing service proposed to come back to India on expiry of contract period to run Maternity and Nursing Home along with the 3rd petitioner who is now having a clinic at Badechowdi in Hyderabad city in a rented premises. They do not have any other non-residential building in the city. Hence they filed eviction petition for bona fide requirement under Sec. lo (3) (iii) (b) of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, hereinafter called the act . They also sought conversion of the subject premises into non-residential building under Sec. 18 of the Act. It is also alleged in the petition that respondents 4 and 5 are in default in payment of rent for an amount of rs. 1500/- for the period June to October, 1983 and Rs. 2500/- for the period november, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 respectively.
( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent filed counter stating that petitioner No. 3 though a doctor is now doing money lending business, that it is not known whether the contract of the petitioners 7 and 8 will continue in future and it is doubtful whether they will come back to India from Iran and hence the commencement of Maternity Nursing Home is a speculative venture created to seek eviction. It is also stated that though the premises occupied by him are non-residential in nature, the other portions being residential, cannot be used for non- residential purpose of running maternity and nursing home unless they are converted under Scc. 18 of the Act. The 4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
