NARAGANI GOVINDA SEKHARA RAO Vs. SHAIK MAHBOOB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in RCA Nos. 68, 69 and 55 of 1980, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, in RCC Nos. 161, 162 and 163 of 1978 respectively.

(2.) The petitioners are the landlords The respondents are the tenants. The petitioners purchased the schedule mentioned property on 7-12-1977,. but no attornment of tenancy has been made. The landlords issued a notice to the tenants demanding payment of rent. Subsequently also they issued a notice for eviction . at one stage on the ground that they require the building for their personal occupation and at a subsequent stage they require the building for the purpose of effecting repairs. Another person also issued a notice to the tenants stating that there was an agreement of sale in his favour and due to that reason the tenants could not pay the rents either to the landlords who have purchased the property or to the person who claims to be a landlord under an alleged agreement of sale in his favour. The tenants also sought permission of the Court for deposit of rents and also for restoration of amenities. The learned Rent Controller held against the tenants and ordered eviction of the tenants. On appeal by the tenants, the lower appellate Court found that there is no default in payment of rent and that the landlords have failed to make out a case that the building is required for their personal occupation. It is against that order, the present three revision petitions have been filed by the landlords as the tenants are in occupation of three independent portions.

(3.) Sri J. V. Suryanarayana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitionerslandlords contended that the mere fact that the 1st petitioner is or was working as a Physical Education Teacher in a High School, it may entail disciplinary action if he carries on business but that cannot destroy his right to recover the demised premises for personal occupation and for his business and the reasoning given by the lower appellate Court on this aspect is erroneous. On the other hand, Sri P L N Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP No. 1418 of 1989 contended that personal requirement means that the premises must be used exclusively by the landlord but not by his family members and the 1st petitioner is working as a Physical Education Teacher and as per the Conduct Rules applicable to him he cannot be permitted to do business while in service.