N CHENCHURAMAIAH Vs. SYED NAWABJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who is the respondent in R.C. 2/76 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Nellore) is the revision petitioner. The eviction was prayed for on four grounds including the ground for bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement and that the tenant secured alternative accommodation as contemplated under Sec. 10(2) (v) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). RCA 10/80 filed by the tenant was allowed. Then the landlord preferred CRP 151/83. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate court for considering afresh in regard to the following two points viz., (i) Whether the respondent landlord has got bona fide requirement for personal occupation of the petition, schedule premises and (ii) whether the appellant-tenant secured alternative accommodation. After remand the learned Subordinate Judge held the two points in favour of the landlord. Then the tenant preferred this revision petition. As per order dt. 23rd March, 90. I held the second point i.e., whether the appellant-tenant secured alternative accommodation against the landlord. By the same order a finding was called for from the appellate court in regard to Point No. 1 i.e. about bona fide requirement. Latter submitted a finding dated 21st August, 1990. It is in favour of the landlord. The same is assailed by the tenant-revision petitioner.

(2.) When it was pleaded for the landlord that except the schedule premises which was let out to the respondent-tenant, he had no other house in Nellore it was stated for the tenant-revision petitioner that the landlord is having number of houses at Nellore. The said question of fact was adverted to in detail by the appellate court in its finding. The material on record discloses that the father of the landlord who died in 1970 was having some houses in Nellore and the landlord and his brother and his mother succeeded to the same. But there is no evidence of partition as amongst the landlord, his brother and their mother. Thus the evidence discloses that the landlord is a sharer along with his brother and his mother, in the properties left by his father and thus those properties include some residential houses in Nellore. But no material is placed before the court to show that the, landlord is exclusively owner of any residential house, other than the schedule premises of which he is the exclusive owner.

(3.) The decision in Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath is referred to by Sri P. Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for tenant-revision petitioner. The question that was considered in the above judgment is "whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is the owner within the meaning of Sec. 13(1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956". Therein one of the co-owners filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his requirement. Then it was urged for the tenant that the suit itself is not maintainable as other co-owners were not impleaded and in any case eviction cannot be ordered on the requirement of only one of the co-owners, and the eviction can be prayed only in case of requirement of all the co-owners. The plea in regard to the non-joinder of other co-owners was rejected as it was not raised at the earliest opportunity. Therein it was held that "it is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purpose of Sec. 13(1) (f) as long he is co-owner of the property being at the same time acknowledged landlord of the defendants." It was also held therein that "a co-owner is as much owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is."