GANGONI SAYARAM Vs. GUPTA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioners are the legal representatives of the landlord Gangoni Sayaram, who died pending the R.C.C. and the legal representative were brought on record by virtue of the orders in I.A. No. 1056/90, dated 23.10.1990. The respondent is the tenant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlords and tenant.

(2.) THE original landlord Gangoni Sayaram filed R.C.C. No. 31/88 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nizamabad against the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and also wilful default. As already stated supra, the original landlord died pending R.C.C. and the present Revision Petitioners-legal representatives, were brought on record. The case of the landlords is that the 1st petitioner who is no more, was the owner of the house bearing Municipal No. 7-8-783 at Devi Road, Nizamabad which was constructed in the year 1974 and the respondent occupied the ground floor of the said house consisting of two shops, one hall, one room and a bath-room for the purpose of business which was taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- per month for a period of 11 months in the year 1975 and the rent was subsequently enhanced from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 925/- per month in the year 1981 and subsequently the rent was enhanced from Rs. 925/- to Rs. 1000/- per month on 7.10.1983 and the lease period was from 1.10.1983 to 1.9.1984 only. It was averred that the 1st petitioner was a forest contractor at Adilabad and it was nationalized by Government and hence he intended to run lodging business at the suit premises and he had made alterations in the first and 2nd floors of the suit premises and had obtained necessary permission also in this regard. It was also further averred that the main entrance of ground floor portion of the suit building is in possession of the respondent and for the said purpose of ground floor is necessary. It was further stated that his son is unemployed and hence he intends to start business in automobiles and hence the premises is required bonafide for personal necessity of the 1st petitioner and his son. It was also stated that the respondent is having many mulgies and the petitioner has no other mulgi except the suit premises. It was also averred that the respondent is a wilful defaulter since he is irregular in payment of rent sand had been paying the rents once in two or three or even four months. The respondent had filed a counter denying all the allegations and the respondent had also mentioned about exchange of notices and had denied the ground of wilful default and also bonafide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 - P.W. 1 being the son of the landlord one Mahesh Kumar, P.W.2 and R.W.1 and also Exs. A-1 to A-9 and Exs. B-1 to B-9, ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that the landlords require the premises bonafide though wilful default was not established and accordingly the learned Rent Controller had allowed R.C.C. No. 31/88 by the order dated 20.4.1993 and the tenant aggrieved by the same filed R.C.A. No. 3/93 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Nizambad under Section 20 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called "Act" in short, and appellate authority after appreciating all the facts and circumstances had allowed the appeal by the order dated 20.10.1997 and aggrieved by the same the landlords filed the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) SRI Sanaka Venkateswara Rao, the learned Counsel for the appearing for the respondent-tenant has strenuously contended that the appellate authority while deciding Point No. 1 at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 had given detailed reasons why on the aspect of bonafide requirement the appellate authority was inclined to reverse the orders of the learned Rent Controller. The appellate Court, being the final Court in appreciating the factual details, such well considered order of the appellate authority cannot be disturbed while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.