MANOJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. LALCHAND AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision preferred by th.e petitioner-landlord against the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 28th October, 1996 allowing RA No.244 of 1993 and setting aside the order of eviction dated 12th April, 1993 passed by the Rent Controller, Secunderabad in RC No.58 of 1989.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the filing of the revision petition is set out as hereunder : The revision petitioner-land lord filed RC No.58 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from his premises bearing No.7-2-747 situate in General Market Street, Secunderabad on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). The respondent-tenant resisted the petition and contended that the petitioner-landlord does not require the premises and he does not have the experience in the jewellery business. In short, it is the contention of the respondent-tenant that the petition filed by the petitioner-landlord lacks bona fides. Based on the pleadings the parties were put to trial and based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Principal Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that the suit premises is required for bona fide requirement and ordered eviction of the respondent-tenant. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the respondnent- tenant filed a statutory appeal in RA No.244 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Before the appellate authority the landlord filed IA No. 1586 of 1994 and added para 7-A to the eviction petition to the effect that the appellant-tenant has secured alternative accommodation at the premises bearing Municipal No.7-1-513 and 7-1-513/13 situate at Subhash Road, Secunderabad and he is carrying on Lodging business under the name and style of 'Rahul Lodge' and, therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the schedule premises on that ground also. The appellant-tenant also filed IA No. 1427 of 1994 seeking to add additional ground and added paragraph 3 (a) to his counter to the effect that the Rent Control Petition is verified and signed by one Jathan Raj Jain, S/o. Madan Raj Jain without the authority of the landlord and as such it is in contravention of Rule 7(3) of the Rent Control Act and the eviction petition is not maintainable in law. Based on the above pleadings and additional pleadings of the respective parties, the appellate Court has addressed itself to the following issues: 1. Whether the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement? 2. Whether the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation?

(3.) Whether the eviction petition is not maintainable as it is not verified and signed by the landlord or by a person authorised by him? 3. The appellate Court also permitted additional evidence and received additonal documents from both the appellant and the respondent. Based on the oral and documentary evidence including the additional evidence, the appellate authority allowed the appeal holding all the issues in favour of the appellant-tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority allowing the appeal and dismissing the Rent Control Case, the petitioner-landlord filed the present revision petition.