NAGANATH Vs. ABDUL WAHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord filed eviction petition R. C. 11/69 in the court of the District Munsif, Nizamabad on the grounds of (1) wilful default; (2) reconstruction and repairs; (3) subletting, and (4) personal requirement. The petitioner did not press the first two grounds before the Rent Controller, but sought eviction on the basis of the remaning two grounds viz., subletting and personal requirement.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the above said R. C. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The 1st respondent is the tenant of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in respect of the premises bearing No. 7-10-983 to 7-10-985, Station Road, Nizamabad. It consists of three separate mulgies, out of which one mulgi belongs to the petitioner towards his 1/3rd share, while the other two rooms belong to the 2nd respondent towards his 2/3rd sbare in the premises. About 12 years back both the petitioner and his brother the 2nd respondent leased out their respective portions of the premises to the first respondent on a monthly rental of Rs. 93-35 ps. and Rs 186-65ps. respectively. The 1st respondent has been running a hotel called "Grand Hotel" in the mulgies of the premises. The petitioner requires his portion in the premises viz., beaming No. 7-10-985 for opening a shop for his son. He also alleges that the 1st respondent has sub leased a portion in violation of the rental agreement to Majeed, Abdul Sattar and Shankar Rao during the pendency of the proceedings and has been collecting rents from them. The petitioner, therefore, seeks eviction of the 1st respondent from his portion. As the 2nd respondent did not join him in the petition he impleaded him as the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The 1st respondent resisted the petition. He contends that the shares of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not separate and they are the joint owners of the premises and there are no partition walls and the 1st respondent is the tenant of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent under ore rental deed executed in their favour and thus the tenancy is joint and hence the eviction petition is not maintainable. He denied the petitioner's personal requirement, but contended that it was not bona fide requirement. He pleads that the petitioner is already in possession of two mulgies in which he is running business and he has several other mulgies in Nizamabad. He also contends that he has been running the said hotel since 12 years with staff of 15 persons and invested large amounts on the said hotel and the eviction will cause irreparable loss and harassment since he has no other business except the hotel business and he does not own any other mulgi of his own for shifting the hotel. He finally contends that the petitioner filed the eviction petition in order to extract higher rents in collusion with the 2nd respondent.