CHITYALA VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO Vs. ALAPATY NARASIMHAMORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the tenant to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru passed in R.C.A. No. 9 of 1969 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, Eluru in H.R.C. No. 1 of 1963 dismissing the petition filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant under sections 10 (2) (5) and 10 (3) (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) The petition was filed by the land lord, who owned five residential buildings and one non-residential building for the eviction of his tenant in the non-residential building where he was running a medical shop known as Lakshmi- narasimha Medical Stores. The contention of the petitioner was that he leased out the premises to the tenant in 1956 for a period of two years on his agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs 40 and on the expiry of the said lease the tenant executed another rent agreement representing that he had purchased a site and building abutting Nallajerla Koderu road and as he was constructing a building in the vacant site for purposes of locating his medical shop he would vacate the premises which he is occupying by 31st December, 1959, that the tenant had accordingly built a new building, located his medical shop in the beginning of 1960 in lone portion and rented the other portions for two shops and has not vacated the building occupied by him as per agreement, that the petitioner also requires the building for his own use for starting a business in fancy and general stores and hence the petition. The tenant-respondent contended that the need of the petitioner is not bona fide that the petitioner had raised the rent from Rs. 25 to 45 and he has further demanded a rise in the rent to 65 and his refusal to pay at the enhanced rate is the cause for the petition, and that the business run in the new building constructed by him is not his but that of his son-in-law.

(3.) The Rent Controller found in favour of the respondent-tenant on both the contentions and dismissed the petition On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed both the findings and directed eviction of the tenant-respondent. Hence this petition to revise that order.