RAMANJANEYULU Vs. VENKATA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision-petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition arising under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Both the Tribunals below have ordered eviction on the ground that the landlady requires the shop premises bona fide for self-occupation. I will state the facts in so far as they are relevant for the present purpose.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed in 1976 with the averments that the tenant, who has been occupying the shop in question for the last eight years, did not vacate the same inspite of a demand to that effect : and that she wants this shop and the adjacent shop in occupation of another tenant, for her own occupation for starting a business by her son. When a notice was served upon the tenant calling upon him to vacate the premises, he came forward with false contentions. The tenant denied the bona fide nature of the personal requirement alleged by the landlady. He stated that she does not require the premises for the purpose averred by her and that, it is only a ruse to get him evicted.

(3.) The only question that arose for consideration before both the Tribunals was, whether the requirement is true. The learned Rent Controller held that though in the notice issued before the institution of these proceedings, and also in the petition, the particular nature of the business proposed to be started by the landlady's son is not specified, still it cannot be said that her requirement is not bona fide, for the reason that (i) the landlady and her son belong to a business community ; (ii) for the last four months, i. e., from about March 1977, P. W-2 (son of the landlady) has been doing 'Mandi' business in a rented premises ; and (iii) that, though no actual preparations were made for starting the business by the time of the filing of the petition, still that cannot be a ground for negativing the landlady's plea, inasmuch as they are admittedly possessed of properties and are capable of raising necessary funds for starting a business. The appellate authority generally agreed with the reasoning of the Rent Controller.