P. L. N. SARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision filed by the tenant arises under the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act 1960, for short "the Act".

( 2 ) WE will refer to the parties in this Judgment as original landlord, landlord and tenant for convenience sake.

( 3 ) EVICTION petition was instituted by the original landlord (father of the landlord) on the ground that the schedule premises is required bona fide for the business of his son (landlord) to commence cloth business. It is stated in the application for eviction that the original landlord is the kartha of Hindu Undivided Family, consisting of himself and two sons (including landlord ). The joint family possesses property including the petition schedule shop. His son diwan Vijaykumar, aged about 22 years (landlord) is carrying on business under the name and style of "vijaya bangle Store" in a rented mulgi bearing Municipal No. 1-1-258/3 belonging to Sn U. Narayana, situate at Chik- kadapalli, Hyderabad. He is pressing the original landlord to provide him petition schedule mulgi belonging to the joint family to commence cloth business on the ground that his bangle business is not profitable and suitable which is being run in a rented premises at chikkadapalli and therefore, the petition schedule premises is required bonafide for his son (Landlord) to commence cloth business. They also stated that not only himself but also his son has necessary capacity to invest in the cloth business and to commence the same in the petition schedule premises and that the bona fide need of the son (landlord) is also the bona fide need of the original landlord. Original landlord filed the application as Kartha of hindu Undivided Family in a representative capacity.

( 4 ) A counter has been filed denying all the allegations in the petition, and in particular, it is stated that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is neither true nor genuine.

( 5 ) RESPECTIVE parties have adduced evidence on their side.

( 6 ) ON a consideration of the entire material placed before him, the Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that bona fide requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the petition was not proved

( 7 ) QUESTIONING the said order, an appeal has been preferred to the appellate Court by the original landlord. Pending appeal, partition was effected on 11-4-1988 by registered partition deed in the Hindu Undivided Family, of which the onginal landlord as well as landlord and another were coparceners. In the said partition, the petition schedule premises fell to the share of the landlord. As a consequence, the landlord filed an application in I. A. No. 378 of 1988 for bunging him on record as the second appellant in the appeal After the landlord was impleaded as second appellant in the appeal, evdence was also recorded by the appellate court. Though the landlord was examined as p. W. 2 in the rent control proceedings in respect of partition effected in the Hindu Undivided family, he was recalled and further examined and cross-examined in the appeal similarly P. W. 1 was also recalled and examined and cross-examined and further evidence was adduced.

( 8 ) ON a consideration of the evidence, learned appellate judge allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the tenant accepting the plea that the landlord bona fide required the petition schedule premises for commencing cloth business.

( 9 ) QUESTIONING the said order of the lower appellate Court, present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

( 10 ) WHEN the revision came up before it was contended that the eviction petition was originally filed by the onginal landlord and that it is not maintainable having regard to the fact that the onginal landlord owns another non-residential building in the city, (Vide Vichwathi Bai vs. Shankar Lal (1} 1987 (2) APLJ 365) and that the onginal plea of the original landlord was that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide for the purpose of business of a member of j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document