BALAKRISHNA Vs. NAGNATH ARJUNA KAVLEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner Balakrishna alias Balaji Mukkawar had filed an application before the Rent Controller, Latur under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control act, 1954. (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), against the present respondent Nagnath Arjun Kawale, for eviction. It related to the premises bearing Municipal House No. 114/5-B, situated in Latur. According to the averments in the petition, the respondent failed to make payment of the rent as agreed and never paid it within the stipulated period. It was also stated that the petitioner had large scale business at Latur and the petitioner intended to shift himself to Latur form Udgir to carry on his business profitably and economically. IN this connection it was further stated that the petitioner bona fide intended to occupy the house premises let out to the respondent for personal use. He had no other premises of his won in his occupation where he could carry on his business and provide residential accommodation.

(2.) In the further paragraph of the petition it is stated that the petitioner intended to demolish and reconstruct the premises which were in a dilapidated condition. They had become dangerous; they may collapse at any time, and so far the safety of the property and for proper and reasonable use, the premises required immediate reconstruction. In this connection, it is added that the petitioner intended to keep the premises for himself after reconstruction.

(3.) A bare reading of these averments in the petition would show that recourse is taken to three clauses; firstly of the wilful default, secondly of personal need for business-cum residence, and thirdly of necessity to reconstruct the premises wherein it is also added that the reconstructed premises would be used for personal occupation.