MOHAMMED AFSAR PASHA Vs. NOOR US SOHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is the owner of premises bearing No. 12-2-225, situate at Murad Nagar, Hyderabad. She is residing in a substantial part of it. A mulgi, carved out of the premises, was given on rent to the Petitioner for non-residential purpose. Respondent filed R.C. No. 391 of 2006 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderbad under Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') for eviction by pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement of the premises for additional accommodation. The R.C. was opposed by the Petitioner. Through judgment dated 17-04-2009, the learned Rent Controller rejected the ground of wilful default, but allowed the case on the ground of additional requirement. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner filed R.A. No. 62 of 2009 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 18-06-2010. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) Sri Basith Ali Yavar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the premises in the occupation of the Petitioner is under nonresidential use, whereas the plea of the Respondent is that the said premises is required for additional residential accommodation. Learned Counsel submits that such a prayer is opposed to the purport of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangaram v. N. Shakar Reddy, 1989 AIR(SC) 302. On merits, the learned Counsel submits that the Respondent failed to make out a case and that the eviction is sought only for the purpose of giving the premises on lease to another tenant, at a higher rent.

(3.) Sri Mohammed Adnan, learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is no prohibition in law for a landlord of the premises to secure additional accommodation even if the purpose of the premises under his occupation; and of the one that is needed for additional accommodation, is not the same. He submits that there is acute shortage of accommodation for the Respondent and her children, who are studying in educational institutions and that they are not only denied of privacy but also are subjected to serious hardship.