VISHNU PRASAD BHATT Vs. K NARAYAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by a tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. While the building was in the ownership of the previous owner and possession of some six tenants including the revision petitioner, the present twenty-four respondents who were the eviction petitioners purchased it under twenty-four separate sale-deeds. By the date of purchase there were six tenants in the suit premises. After purchase, two of the tenants voluntarily relinquished their possession. From the remaining tenants the landlords demanded vacant possession of the building, but the tenants refused to vacate. There were suit notices and reply notices, but they were to no purpose. The landlords, seeking eviction of the remaining four tenants, filed before the Rent Controller, four separate eviction petitions. Originally the first five respondents to this revision petition alone filed those eviction petitions. On the objection of the tenants that five owners cannot sue for the twenty-four owners, petitioners 6 to 24 had been added as eviction petitioners. In those four petitions common evidence was recorded and P. W. 1 was examined on behalf of the landlords. On behalf of the tenants some seven witnesses were examined. The eviction petitions were allowed on 24/03/1980. Thereafter one tenant vacated the building and the remaining three tenants appealed against the orders of eviction. The appellate Court, after hearing the appellants and the respondents, dismissed those three appeals on 24/08/1981. Two of those three appellants, accepting their defeat had vacated the building. But the present revision petitioner pursued the matter by filing this revision petition.

(2.) The eviction petitions sought the eviction of the tenants on three grounds: (1) the building was required for running the existing businesses of landlords which were being run in rented buildings; (2) the building was required for starting new businesses of the landlords and (3) the building was required for effecting repairs and modifications.

(3.) To the eviction petitions, based upon the above grounds, the main defence of the tenants was that the institution of the eviction proceedings was not bona fide. The tenants alleged that the landlords asked them to pay enhanced rent which was refused by them. Thus, have failed to secure enhanced rent, the tenants alleged, the landlords had filed these applications for eviction.