S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the tenant who lost in both the Courts below. The respondent-landlord filed the petition under the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act ) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the non-residential premises situated at Meraka Street, Rajahmundry town on the ground that he requires it for his business purposes and also that repairs have to be effected to the building which is old. The tenant filed counter stating that as the respondent owns several non-residential and residential houses in Rajahmundry town, the alleged requirement is not bona fide and that the eviction petition is filed with oblique motive of obtaining enhanced rent. The necessity of effecting repairs is denied. The maintainability of the petition is also challenged on the ground that the petitioner which is a limited company has to be sued represented by its Director or any Principal officer but not the Manager. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for carrying on Vani Paper Mart business in the schedule premises, that the landlord does not have any other non- residential premises, that the building requires extensible repairs and that the petition is maintainable even though the respondent is shown as represented by its Manager. It was confirmed on appeal and the tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) MR. S. Balchand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (I) the burden of proving that the respondent does not own any non- residential premises is on him u/ss. 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act and as the same has not been discharged by him, he is not entitled to obtain eviction as per the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Dvaji vs. K. Sudarshana Rao and the Full Bench decision of this Court in smt. Vidyavathi Bai vs. Shanker Lal; (II) that as both the parties have failed to produce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and in view of the conflicting evidence of P. W. 1 and R. W. 1 the matter may be remanded for determination of the question as to whether the respondent has any other non-residential premises of his own available for occupation. (III) that the requirement of personal occupation is not bona fide; (IV) that the eviction petition is not maintainable as it was filed as represented by the Manager of the Branch Office, who is not competent to represent the company; (V) that in any event, as eviction will result in hardship to the tenant, partial eviction may be granted under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. Contention (i):

( 3 ) IT is now well settled that for purpose of obtaining eviction from a non- residential premises, it must be established that the landlord must not be occupying any other non-residential premises which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled. So, the question is whether the landlord owns any other non-residential premises in Rajahmundry town. In the eviction petition, the landlord has stated that he requires the suit premises for purpose of carrying on the business which he is now carrying on under the name and style of vani Paper Mart in K. V. R. Swamy Road, Rajahmundry in rented premises. It is also averred that he is not owner or entitled to the possession of any other non-residential premises within Rajahmundry Municipal limits.

( 4 ) IN the evidence deposing as P. W. 1, the landlord stated that he is doing paper business in Gantalamma Gudi Street in a rented building belonging to one Pilladi Satyam paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1950/ -. He also stated that he was not living with his father and was separated from him in the year 1986. The tenant deposing as R. W. 1 has stated that he does not know whether the premises in Gantalamma Temple Street in which the landlord is doing business is a rented premises or his own premises. He further stated that the landlord is having one building in Seet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document