ESWARDAS AGARWAL Vs. PRAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the Revision Petitioner. The eviction petition R.C.No.159/90 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal occupation. The case of the Revision Petitioner-petitioner in R.C.No.159/90 is as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the schedule premises which consists of ground floor and first floor. Sri Arjuna Shivaji, the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent was the tenant in the schedule premises and he died leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The schedule premises was originally let out for the purpose of the residence. Now the respondents are the occupants of the schedule premises on monthly rent of Rs.240/-. The tenancy is oral. The petitioner and his family members are now residing jointly in premises bearing Door No. 59 situated at St. Mari's Road, Secunderabad which belongs to the petitioner. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, his daughter and two sons. The eldest son of the petitioner Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal is the student of final year, Mechanical Engineering in MBS College and he also assists in his business in which the petitioner is partner. The other son Raju Agarwal is studying first year course in Industrial Engineering in MBS college. The other portion of the first floor of the premises No.133 is in occupation of auditors as one of the tenants. The eldest son of the petitioner bona fide requires the schedule premises. The schedule premises consists of 6 rooms, W.C. and bathroom. The present house of the petitioner consists of three rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor and it is not sufficient for the residence of his three children who are grown up and so, he requires the schedule premises for the purpose of providing separate accommodation for his eldest son. In the present house, there was kitchen room, drawing room and one bed room and two other rooms. The petitioner and his wife are using the bed room and drawing room while two sons and daughter are using the other rooms. Thus there is shortage of accommodation for living and so, he bona fide requires the schedule premises. The eldest son of the petitioner is likely to be married and so he requires the schedule premises. The petitioner or his sons have no other residential or non-residential buildings in the twin cities except the schedule premises. The respondent filed counter, admitting that Sri Arjun Shivaii occupied the schedule premises and that they are now continuing in the premises as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.240.00. They further admitted that the petitioner and his family members are at present residing in the premises No.59, St. Mary's Road, Secunderabad but denied that his family consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter. They further denied that the petitioner bona fide requires the schedule premises for self-occupation of his eldest son. They alleged that the ground of bonafide requirement is invented only to somehow evict them from the schedule premises and so that it can be let out to others on higher premium and rent by converting the premises into a non-residential one. They further denied that the schedule premises consists of six rooms W.C. and bothroom, but they stated that the schedule premises consists of two rooms, a hall with wooden partition, kitchen, stair-case, W.C. and bathroom. They also denied that the present residence of the petitioner which consists of three rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor are not sufficient for his family and that the schedule premises is required for providing separate residence for his eldest son. They alleged that the petitioner owns several residential and non- residential properties which he did not disclose in the petition. They further alleged that the building of which the schedule premises of the portion is one of several properties belonging to the petitioner. In the year 1963, the rent was Rs.40.30 paise and gradually it was enhanced from time to time on demand by the petitioner to Rs.240.00. They alleged that the schedule premises is situated in a highly commercial locality where exorbitant rents and high premia are prevailing. The object of the petitioner is to somehow evict them from the premises and convert the premises into a non-residential premises and to let it out to a commercial establishment or institution. They lastly stated that the adjacent portion of the schedule premises is in occupation of Sekhar and Company, Chartered Accountants and that portion was also a residential portion. They stated that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in seeking the possession of the schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller after framing the points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 and also R.W.I and Exs.P-1 to P-5 and Exs.R-1 to R-10 had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not require the premises bona fide and ultimately the eviction petition was dismissed by an order dated 28-2-1994 and aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner had preferred R.A.No.272/94 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad which was dismissed by an order dated 24-11-1997 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner had drawn my attention to C.M.P.No.19999/98, an affidavit filed by the Revision Petitioner bringing subsequent events to the notice of the revisional Court. The affidavit in the said C.M.P. reads as follows:

(3.) I have perused the order of the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority. The appellate authority had discussed this aspect at paragraph-9. The reasoning of the appellate authority is to the effect that P.W.2 was examined on 3-3-1993 and even by the date of giving evidence, P.W.2 was unmarried and P.W.2 categorically stated in the cross-examination that he was unmarried and he had not separated from his father and so even after the lapse of two years and eight months, P.W.2 remained unmarried even though it is stated in the eviction petition that he requires the petition schedule premises for his residence and he is likely to get married and so it is not clear when he is going to get married. The approach of the Courts below in recording these reasons was mainly on the basis of an event relating to the family of the Revision Petitioner-landlord. Now it is clearly brought to my notice in this Revisional Court by filing the wedding card by way of additional evidence that the need of the family of the landlord is bona fide and the Revision Petitioner-landlord requires this premises to have convenient accommodation to his sons also. In the light of the subsequent events and in the light of the fact that the other side had not chosen to appear before the Court and deny the same, it can be taken that the subsequent events are not denied and can be deemed to have been admitted and in the light of the subsequent events, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and accordingly the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed. But however in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises. No costs.