VEMANA KUMAR BABU Vs. KODAMATI JAGANMOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed R.C.C. No.97/ 86 on the file of the Rent Controller-Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry for the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. As against the judgment in R.C.C.No.97/86, R.C.A. No.82/95 was filed which was dismissed and as against the same, the landlord filed C.R.P. No.4353/98. Likewise, the landlord filed R.C.C. No.1297 87 under Section 4 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against which R.C.A. No.83/95 was filed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had decided both the matters by a common order dated 4-8-1988 and aggrieved by the said orders, as already stated (supra), C.R.P. No.4353/98 was filed as against the judgment in R.C.A. No.82/95 and C.R.P. No.4415/98 is filed against the order in R.C.A. No.83/95. Thus, the unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is assailing the orders made in the aforesaid matters by both the Courts below.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties in R.C.C. No.97/86 are as follows:- The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule premises. Respondent took the schedule premises from the petitioner on 1-11-1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.230/-. Petitioner's father purchased the petition schedule premises in the name of the petitioner with a view to provide livelihood. There is another shop which was given to elder brother of the petitioner in which the family trade business is purchase and sale of cloth is being carried since several years. After the petitioner completed his studies, his father advised him to gain experience in cloth business and for that the petitioner worked in cloth shop of his brother. Petitioner leased out the schedule premises to the respondent with a specific understanding that the schedule premises should be vacated and handed over to him by 1-11-1986. Inspite of the requests of the petitioner, the respondent has not vacated the schedule premises. Petitioner is in requirement of the shop to set up his business and particularly in view of the difficulty and inconvenience he experienced in continuing with his brother. The petitioner got issued lawyer's notice dated 26-7-1986 requesting the respondent to vacate the premises by 1-11-1986 and on that the respondent came to the petitioner and offered to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1000/-p.m., and a pagidi of Rs.30,000/- provided the lease was extended for another five years. But the petitioner did not agree for the same as he was in requirement of the premises to start his business. On that the respondent declined to vacate the schedule premises and also challenged the petitioner that how he could get the eviction of the respondent. Petitioner has no other non-residential building belonging to him at Rajahmundry. Petitioner belongs to a trading family and he has no other avocation for means of livelihood except by doing the cloth business and he is in dire need of starting the cloth business of his own in the schedule premises. Respondent is having his own shop in the main road and having separate money lending business. Therefore the petitioner needs the premises for his bona fide requirement.

(3.) The respondent had filed a counter to the following effect: The respondent submits that he is the tenant of non-residential premises bearing D.No.9-20-110, Rajahmundry Municipality, Rajahmundry on a monthly rent of Rs.230/- and he is tenant of the schedule premises under a registered lease deed dated 9-10-1981 duly executed by both the petitioner and respondent and got registered the same on 7-11-1981 for a period of five years commencing from 1-11-1981 to 31-10-1986 and even before the expiry of the lease period, petitioner got issued notice to the respondent dated, 26-7-1986 for which the respondent sent a reply dated, 4-8-1986. The respondent submits that when he tendered rent for October, 1986 on 3-11-1986 and petitioner received the same on 5-11-1986 and also received the rent for October, 1986. Thereafter, the respondent tendered the rent for October, 1986 on 1-12-1986 is person and again the petitioner refused to receive the same and it was sent through money order dated 2-12-1986 and the M.O. was also returned and on that the respondent issued notice dated, 13-12-1986 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the bank account to deposit the rents and the petitioner received the said notice but he did not give any reply. On that the respondent again sent the amount through M.O. on 28-12-1986 and it was also refused. The respondent filed R.C.C.No.9/87 on the file of Rent Controller, Rajahmundry and started depositing the rents into the Court. The contention of the petitioner that his father purchased the schedule premises with a view to provide livelihood to him is false. The contention of the petitioner that there is another shop which is given to his elder brother and in which the family trade is being carried on is not correct. In the said premises they are carrying on the joint family business and it is not the separate business of the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner's family possessed and owns a shop in Mahatma Gandhi Complex and it is suppressed in the petition. The contention of the petitioner that after completion of his studies, his father advised to gain experience in cloth business and under those circumstances the schedule property was leased to the respondent for a period of five years is not correct. The respondent submits that there was an understanding between the parties that after expiry of five years lease period, the lease was to be extended for another five years on fresh terms and conditions. The allegation that the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the premises as he wanted to set up his own business is not correct. The only demand made by the petitioner was for enhancement of rent. Petitioner got issued notice dated 26-7-1986 for which the respondent gave reply dated 4-8-1986. The allegation that after receiving notice dated 26-7-1986 the respondent approached the petitioner and offered pagidi of Rs.30,000/- and rent of Rs.1000/- per month provided that the lease is extended for another five years is false. On the other hand the petitioner himself approached the respondent and agreed to extend the lease for another five years if the respondent pays the rent of Rs.1000/- and pagidi of Rs.30,000/- and for that the respondent refused. Therefore the petition is filed on false grounds. The allegation that the petitioner has no other non-residential premises in Rajahmundry is not correct and it is also not correct that he has no other avocation or means of livelihood. The present business is the joint family business. The family of the petitioner is carrying on business in main road, Rajahmundry and also in M.G. Complex and therefore the requirement of the premises by the petitioner is a ruse. The respondent does not possess any shop in main road and he is only a partner in money lending business carried on by his family in the name and style of Vijaya Finance Syndicate.