K NAGAPPA Vs. T D KRISHANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of proceedings taken by the two respondents herein under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act"). The two respondents are undivided brothers and they constitute a joint Hindu Family and are owners of a house bearing No. 65/66 (corresponding to new Nos. 5-2-434, 435 and 440) situate in Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. The building was let out to the petitioner herein on a monthly rental of Rs. 100.00 for residential purpose a long time ago for residential purpose a long time ago i.e., the petitioner has been in occupation of the building as a tenant since the year 1948. The respondents have another building, situate in another locality called Pan Bazaar, of their own and they were using it for the residential purpose of both using it for the residential purpose of both the respondents previously. On the ground that the respondents require the building let out to the petitioner also, for their own occupation they wanted him to vacate the building. When he did not do so the petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(b) of the Rent Control Act was filed by the respondents for evicting the petitioner and to put them in possession of the building on the ground that they bona fide require it for the occupation of the 2nd respondent. Both the Rent Controller and on appeal the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, found that the respondents bona fide require the building for the occupation of the 2nd respondent and accordingly the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner and that order was confirmed by the Chief Judge. City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in the appeal. It is for questioning the correctness of that order the tenant has preferred this revision.

(2.) The facts which are either not in controversy or have been established by evidence and accepted by the Courts below and which have not be controverted at the time of hearing of this petition, are the following; In the year 1948 when the building in question was let out to the petitioner the Joint Family of the respondents consisted of the two brothers namely, the respondents herein and the mother and the respondents were still young then and were unmarried. Now both the respondents are married. the 1st respondent has his wife and five children while the 2nd respondent has his wife and four children. the mother of the respondents who is a widow is also living with them. The house which they were occupying consists of three roods, a kitchen, a bathroom, a lavatory and verandah. the respondents 1 and 2 though continue as members of a joint family without any division they have separated in mess.

(3.) Thus the family of the respondents has grown very much since the building in question was let out to the petitioner in the year 1948. They are having a number of children and their mother also is living with them. They are having separate messes and therefore they require separate kitchens. Under these circumstances the case of the respondents is that both the respondents with their families, are unable to manage with the accommodation available in their present building and therefore they agreed between themselves that the 1st respondent with his family members should continue to live in their present house and the 2nd respondent and the members of his family should move into the building in question. Therefore it is necessary that the petitioner should vacate the building as it is required for the occupation of the 2nd respondent and the respondent require the building bona fide for their own occupation.