CHAKKA SURYAKAMALA Vs. AYINAVALLI V. NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this C.R.P at the instance of appellant / respondent is to the order dated 01.06.2019 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2018 where under learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant / respondent under Section 20 of A.P Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), while confirming the decree and order dated 28.08.2018 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni directing the eviction of appellant/respondent from the petition scheduled tiled shop room.

(2.) The parties in this CRP are referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property, which he let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. While so, the Tuni Municipality issued notice under Section 231 of A.P. Municipalities Act stating that the building being old and dilapidated one has to be demolished. Respondent filed R.C.C.No.2 of 2015 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni seeking a direction to the petitioner to effect repairs to the roof of the leasehold shop, which is pending enquiry. Further case of petitioner is that he is a physically handicapped person and oil manufacturer by caste and so, he wants to carry on the business in oil manufacturing and selling, for which he needed the building for demolition and reconstruction to set up his business. Thus, he required the premises for a bonafide personal occupation. His other buildings were in occupation of tenants. The respondent and her husband have already secured an alternative accommodation and they are in possession of very big godowns for storing cement bags. Hence, the petitioner filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 for eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) and Section 12 of the Act.