IMMADISETTI VAIKUNTAM Vs. RANGA MALLIKARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant of the suit premises in R. C. C. No. 7/76 on the file of the Rent Controller-District Munsif, Khammam, is the petitioner before me. The landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default; that the premises has become dilapidated and] he requires it for repairs and reconstruction; and that finally for his personal occupation to carry on a business which he was now carrying on at the time of making the application in a rented house. Ground No.1 was given up by the landlord before the Rent Controller. However, so far as grounds Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, both the Tribunals found that the building is in a dilapidated condition, and that the landlord had obtained sanction of the Municipality, and, therefore, the tenant has to be vacated, for reconstruction and repairs of the dilapidated building. Both the authorities below, also found that the landlord is carrying on business in a rented house and that he is bonafide in need of the suit premises, for carrying on his business, as he has no other house or shop of his own in the town for carrying on the business, Therefore, both the authorities passed orders of eviction. Hence this Revision Petition.

(2.) Mr. Eswara Prased the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the tenant-petitioner, strenuously contends, that if the petition for eviction was under Section 12 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), then the orders of the lower courts are incorrect for two reasons, viz, (1) that the lower courts ought to have taken an undertaking form the landlord, that after reconstruction he will hand over possession of the house to the tenant. The orders of the Lower authorities are silent on this aspect. The second ground is, that if it was a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act, the lower authorities ought to have given permission in the order itself permitting the landlord to convert the building which was admittedly residential into a non-residentialbui'ding, and both the orders are silent on this aspect also. Therefore, submits, the learned Advocate, that if it is concluded that this order of eviction was passed under Sec. 12 of the Act, then his Revision Petition should be allowed, because the conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act have not been complied with by the lower authorities.

(3.) The next contention of Mr. Eswara Prasad is, that if it is taken that this petition is filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, and the orders of both the authorities have been bassed thereunder, then under Section 18 of the Act, the Rent Controller ought to have given permission to convert the residential building into a non-residential building, and that permission has not been obtained by the landlord. To my mind, this Revision can be disposed not under the ground of Section 12 of the Act, but it can be disposed of under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. Admittedly the suit premises is a fresidential house. The landlord has categorically stated that he has no house of his own, and that he is carrying on a particular type of business in a rented house, and he wants the suit premises to carry on his own business. Both the lower authorities after enquiry, gave a concurrent finding that the requirement of the suit premises by the landlord is bopafide, that he wants to carry on the business which he is now carrying on in a rented shop, It is not necessary, that the Rent Controller, while passing orders under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act, should give a specific finding for conversion of the residential building into a non-residential building under Section 18 of the Act. That order may be obtained by the landlord later. That apart, the landlord had placed the entire facts before the lower authorities viz., that the building was a residential building and that he was carrying on business in another premises not belonging to him, and that he wants this premises for his own use to carry on busienss and not for any residential purpose. Therefore, when all these circumstances were before the lower authorities, and they had taken these facts into consideration and then given permission, it would only mean that the lower authorities had given permission to the landlord to convert the residential building into a non-residential building. To my mind, it is not necessary to pass any orders expressly, having regard to the circumstances of the case, under Section 18 of the Act. Hence I do not see any substance in this Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is given 3 months time to vacate the suit premises, provided he pays rent to the landlord, by 10th of each succeeding month. If he does not comply with this condition, he will not be entitled to the grace period and he will be evicted forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. C. R. P. dismissed.