The court upheld the eviction based on the landlord's need for additional accommodation, despite finding no wilful default in rent payment.

J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the tenant of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/ the respondents filed R. C. C. No. 4 of 1987 in the court of the Principal district Munsiff-cum-Rent Controller, Srikalahasti, for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he committed wilful default in the payment of the rent and also on the ground that the respondents bonafide require the premises for their personal occupation. On both the grounds the Rent Controller found in favour of the respondents and ordered eviction of the petitioner. On appeal filed by the petitioner in C. M. A. No. 25/89, the Rent Control Appellate authority cum-Subordinate Judge. Srikalahasti differred from the Rent controller on the question of wilful default in payment of rent and held that there is no wilful default. The learned Judge found that the respondents failed to make out a case of personal requirement but held that the respondents need the premises for their additional accommodation. In that view of the matter the appeal was dismissed and the order of eviction was upheld.

( 2 ) SRI P. S. Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the building comprises of residential and non-residential premises which were taken on lease by the petitioner for both residential as well as non-residential purposes and hence the lease is a composite lease and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In support of the said contention the learned counsel relied on a decision in M/s. Heerachand Poonamchand vs. M/s kanchan Cycle Trd Co. . The said contention was not raised either before the Rent controller or before the appellate authority. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the contention for the first time as held in R. Audiseshaiah vs. S. M, mallikarjuna. The question involves investigation of facts which cannot be done without any plea or raising of an issue and the adduction of evidence by both the parties. The first contention of the petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to be raised in this revision. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plea of the respondents for eviction is based on their personal requirement only and is not based on any plea that the premises is required for their additional accommodation. In the petition filed by the respondents for eviction. Section 10 (3) (c) is mentioned, which would also cover their plea for additional accommodation. A complete reading of the eviction petition clearly shows that the respondents in fact pleaded that they require the premises for their additional accommodation. The court will not be justified in insisting on technicalities but has to look into the spirit of the petition. In that view of the matter the second submission of the petitioner has no force and has to be rejected,

( 3 ) BOTH thetribunals have elaborately discussed theevidence, both oral and documentary on record and arrived at the findings of fact regarding the bonafide personal requirement of the petitioner and additional accommodation for their own occupation. The findings of the both the Tribunals are proper and need no interferenceinthisrevision. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner had already evicted the premises in June, 1991 and as such no request for granting any time for evicting the premises can be considered. No Costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document