NALAM NAGA VENKATA MARUTHI RAO Vs. TAMMU SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "Act", by the unsuccessful tenants in both the Courts below. The respondent is the landlady who filed R.C.C.No.2/89 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Machilipatnam initially on the ground of bona fide requirement and subsequently by filing I.A.NO. 349/92 seeking amendment of the petition raising additional ground of sub-tenancy. As far as the ground of subtenancy is concerned, both the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority had negatived the same, but however as far as the ground of bona fide requirement is concerned, both the Courts had arrived at a concurrent finding that the respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as "landlady" for the purpose of convenience, requires the petition schedule premises bonafide and had ordered eviction. The Revision Petitioners. hereinafter for the purpose of convenience referred to as "tenants" being aggrieved of the order made in C.M.A.No.1/97 on the file of Senior Civil Judge-appellate authority, Machilipatnam confirming the order of eviction in R.C.C.No.2/89 on the file of Rent Controller, Machilipatnam, had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. The pleadings of both the parties are elaborate. The tenants also had filed additional counter apart from the counter initially filed opposing the eviction petition. In support of their respective contentions, the landlady had examined herself as P.W.1 and also had examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and had marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 and on behalf of the tenants R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-53 were marked.

(2.) Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioners in his own style had vehemently argued that even if it is a case of concurrent findings by both the courts below, both the Courts below had totally erred in appreciating the pleadings and also the evidence in this regard and also had failed to appreciate the legal position relating to bona fide requirement properly. The learned Counsel also had contended that the requirement for running the business of daughter's son cannot be bona fide requirement and the two daughters are elsewhere. There is absolutely no necessity for anyone of them requiring this premises and only with a view to sell away this property after throwing the Revision Petitioners out of the property this eviction proceeding was thought of under the Act. In as much the original tenant died, the legal representatives came on record and at present they are pursuing the litigation. The learned Counsel also had submitted that it is a non-residential premises and it cannot be required for residential purpose. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Mandalal Srikrishna Malpani v. Ayodya Devi Asawa and had contended that the "test of social and economic dependence" laid down by the Division Bench had not been properly applied and properly appreciated by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the daughter's son cannot be said to be a member of the family of the landlady. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision of Apex court in Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur and Pendyala Venkatakrishnarao v. Dr. B. Seetharam and had pointed out the nature of pleadings and also the evidence which had been let-in in this regard and had submitted that this aspect had not been appreciated at all in proper perspective by both the Courts below and in such circumstances even if it is a matter of concurrent findings, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, it is a fit matter where the revisional Court can interfere with an order of this nature.

(3.) Sri Sanaka Venkateswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-landlady in his own style had emphatically contended that though the ground of sub-letting was rejected by both the Courts below, as far as the ground of bona fide requirement is concerned, both the Courts below had concurrently held that the respondent-landlady is entitled to the relief of eviction since she bonafide requires the petition schedule premises. The learned Counsel also had contended that the husband of the landlady died in the year 1984 and they were blessed only with two daughters without any male issues and both the daughters are married and one daughter had settled at Madras and another daughter had settled at Hyderabad and there is no one to attend to her at Machilipatnam and the elder son of her elder daughter by name Kishore intended to shift to Machilipatnam where he can attend to his grand mother and the grandson is an unemployed youth having financial resources and inasmuch as the family is involved in business, i.e., manufacture of masala powder, they intend to open an industry at Machilipatnam for manufacture of masala powder with the backing of the family reputation in the said trade and her grandson is very eager to exploit and explore the potential markets regarding the same. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the landlady wants to start business with the assistance of her grandson i.e., the son of one of the co-owners and hence it can be said that a member of the family of the landlady intends to assist the landlady in commencing such a business. The learned Counsel also had contended that the aspect that grandson's requirement is not the requirement of the landlady and hence it does not fall under bona fide requirement was not even pleaded in the counter. Further, the learned Counsel had taken me through the chief-examination of P.W-1 and other witnesses and also R.W.1 and had pointed out that the bonafide requirement is clearly established. The learned Counsel also had contended that the parties had gone to trial knowing the respective contentions and hence the Revision Petitioners cannot contend otherwise taking advantage of the pleading to the effect that the grandson of the landlady wants to commence the business and hence it cannot be said to be bona fide requirement of the landlady as such. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision cited (1) above and also S.A. Samad v. P. Ramulamma. The learned Counsel also had contended that at the best it is a need of a co-owner and the findings given by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse findings warranting interference in Revision. The learned Counsel also had contended that the pleadings are to be construed liberally and the substance of the pleadings alone may have to be looked into. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Ram Das v. Ishwar Chander and others) Lachhman Das v. Santokh Singh; Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul; Ram Sarup Gupta v, Bishun Narain Inter College, S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kitmari Krishna; Kali Prasad v. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.