GOPINATH Vs. MANMOHAN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.A 19 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is the Revision petitioner. The respondent in this C.R.P. is the landlord. However, for the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant.

(2.) The landlord filed R.C.No. 223 of 1981 for eviction of tenant from the premises bearing No. 4-2-204 of Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The case of the landlord is that originally this property belongs to Kishan Rao Afzalpurkar and his family members, who sold the property to this landlord and his brothers on 4-7-1980, and this tenant has been the tenant of the premises originally of the original owners and subsequently the tenant was duly attorned after the aforesaid purchase by the landlord and his brothers and in the oral partition dated 8-8-1980 between the landlord and his brothers the petition schedule property had fallen to the share of this landlord and the tenant was also informed about the same and the tenant was paying the rent to the landlord till June 1981 and at the time of filing the eviction petition, the landlord had been staying at Eluru carrying on cloth business. It was also further stated that the landlord and his family members had decided to shift to Hyderabad inasmuch as they belong to trading family after winding-up the business at Eluru and for the purpose of commencing and carrying on the cloth business at the petition schedule property he requires the suit premises for bona fide personal requirement as he has no other non-residential premises of his own in the city and in fact the landlord had also issued a notice to the tenant and instead of complying with the demand, the tenant had issued a reply with all false and untenable allegations.

(3.) The tenant had filed a counter to the effect that he is not aware of oral partition and unless it is prove that this property had fallen to the share of the landlord exclusively, he cannot maintain the eviction petition and the bona fide requirement of the landlord is not at all true and the landlord and his family members has shifted to Eluru long ago and had established their business and the alleged partition and bona fide requirement is only to see that the tenant is thrown out and the tenant has started his business long back, had established reputation in the market and goodwill and if eviction is ordered he will be put to serious loss as there is no other source of living for him.