In this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Rent Act, for brevity), the landlord is the petitioner. He is Medical Doctor by profession. He is the owner of nonresidential premises bearing door No.3-5-21/1 to 5 situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad - a prime commercial area (hereafter called, the schedule premises). A portion of the same in the First Floor was let out to the respondent (tenant) who is Dental Surgeon specializing in Orthodontia (correction of teeth). The landlord filed R.C.No.146 of 1998 before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the tenant for personal occupation. He gave two reasons for the same: that the landlords father is suffering from old age problems and requires medical. Attendance regularly, and that he wants to shift practice from his native place to Hyderabad, as he has had been receiving threatening calls from extremists for over three years. The tenant opposed the petition denying the petition allegations and further alleged that the landlord has another suitable premises available in the area, that there was no threat from extremists and that the father of the landlord, who developed dislike, is bent upon evicting the tenant.

2. Learned Rent Controller after considering evidence 1 believed landlord and ordered eviction, by order dated 20-10-2000. In appeal by the tenant, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate authority), Hyderabad, however, allowed the appeal dismissing petition for eviction on the holding that the landlord failed to mention in the registered notice, Ex.P-1, about the threat from naxalites (extremists).

3. Learned counsel for the landlord petitioner herein; contends that the finding of the appellate authority is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Having agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord wanted to shift his practice to Hyderabad, on surmise the appellate authority came to conclusion that there was no need to shift to Hyderabad when the landlord was getting handsome income in the village. He nextly submits that the situation in naxalite infested areas including Nizamabad District, is so fearsome, that no sane person would lodge a complaint to the police about the threats of naxalites and mere non-lodging of a complaint with the police cannot render evidence of the landlord unbelievable. He relied on the decision of this Court in Vatcha Chandra Kumari v. Atava Narasimha Rad.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/tenant raised the following contentions. The landlord, admittedly, has good practice in Navipet village and except mala fide intention to evict the tenant, the landlord has no necessity of the schedule premises for personal occupation. He failed to prove the bona fide requirement and the alleged naxalite problem and threats he faced in Navipet village. The Rent Act has been amended by A. P .Act No.17 of 2005 with effect from 28-05-2005 taking the buildings fetching a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and above, from I outside the purview of the Rent Act and that during the pendency of the proceedings, with effect from 01-04-2004, the rent was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- and the tenant has deposited the same to the Bank account of the landlord in Bank of India, Kachiguda branch. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition itself is not maintainable.

Scope of revision

5. Section 22 of the Rent Act empowers the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by the appellate authority and examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity and propriety of such order. In the initial years of working of the Rent Act, the High Court interpreted the provision as enabling the re-examination of the evidence and scrutiny of the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority. This view, however, has not been accepted by Supreme Court while interpreting Section 22 of the Rent Act.

6. In Mudigonda Chandra Mouli