M/S. DECCAN WINE & GENERAL STORE M/S. DECCAN WINE CORPORATION OF INDIA (BOTH BEING PARTNERSHIP FIRMS) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS Vs. A. EASHWARAIAH AND FOUR OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The relevant facts, which gave raise to this revision, are :

(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 bonafide 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 bonafide 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 Eviction 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 Dec., 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 she 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 bonafide.