L MALHOTRA Vs. A EASHWARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are the petitioners in this revision.

(2.) The relevant facts, which gave rise to this revision, are: By a notice dated 15th December 1973, the respondents-landlords demanded the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question, on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub-letting of the premises and that the premises in question is required bona fide for the purpose of the business of Chemists and Druggists which one of the members of the landlord's family proposes to commence. In their reply notice, dated 23rd December, 1973, the tenants, while generally controverting the allegations made in the notice dated 15th December, 1973, stated, inter alia, that they were not aware that the premises in question was required bona fide by the landlords for purposes of business and it could not be admitted to be true and that they were paying the rents regularly and when the rental amounts were refused to be received, then, the same were sent by money-order, cheques, etc., but the said amounts were returned and, therefore, they were sending again a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3.915 drawn on a particular bank, being the arrears of rent already sent earlier upto the month ending 30th'November. 1973 and that, therefore, the question of vacating the premises would not arise. Then, the landlords filed R.C. No. 202 of 1974 before the Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction of the tenants on two counts, namely, for sub-letting the premises and for the bona fide requirement of the premises for the business of Chemists and Druggists, which one of the petitioners proposes to commence. The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller by rendering judgment against the landlords on both the points. On appeal, the allegation of subletting was given up; and the Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the first Court, held that it was satisfied with regard to the bona fide requirement of the premises in question for carrying on the proposed business of Chemists and Druggists and that there is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the tenants to come to the conclusion that the eviction petition is intended by the landlords with an oblique motive and purpose. The Appellate Court further held that, under those circumstances, the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlords' requirement in respect of the premises in question is not bona fide cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Hence this re\ision by the tenants.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners- tenants argued that, having given up two out of the three grounds on which the case was originally initiated, the landlords have miserably failed, to establish that the premises in question was required bona fide for the business which they proposes to commence. The evidence let in does not inspire confidence. In fact, it is for the landlords to establish and the burden rests on them to show that the premises in question is required bona fide for the purpose for which it is sought to be vacated. The first Court has very rightly appreciated the evidence and, therefore, held against the landlords and rejected the petition. Thereafter, the Appellate Court has misconceived not only the provisions enacted in section 10, Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evction Control) Act, 1960, but also perversely appreciated the evidence let in and, consequently, has come to an incorrect conclusion. The further argument of the learned Counsel is that in December, 1973, when the rent was sought to be enhanced for which the other tenants were agreeable, and since these tenants could not agree, the rent petition has been resorted to with an oblique motive to cause detriment to their interests. There is no reason as to why the landlords should pitch upon this particular premises in question which admittedly comprises three mulgies, when admittedly they require only two mulgies and the premises adjacent to the premises in question consists of only two mulgies. There are no special features that have been pointed out for selecting the premises in question. The evidence of P.W. 1, which is discrepant in several respects and which is not at all corroborated by P.W. 2, one of the landlords, ought to have been rejected by the Appellate Court. The main ground of the landlords for seeking the eviction of the tenants is their refusal to enhance the rent. As such, it is contended, the requirement is not bona fide.