KANDA LINGAIAH Vs. P NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant filed this civil revision petition. The respondent is the landlady of the petition schedule property bearing No.2-6-93/5 situated at S.B.H. Road, Near Clock Tower, Mahabubnagar Town of Mahabubnagar District. The respondent filed R.C.No.4/1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller, Mahabubnagar for eviction of the petitioner herein under Section 10(3) (a)(iii)(b) directing to evict the tenant and put the landlady in possession for the purpose of commencing the business by her son and husband. It is stated that the husband of the respondent is a retired employee and son of the respondent was running a medical stores at Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, he sustained loss and, therefore, she requires the said premises for her bona fide requirement to commence the business by her son and husband. Admittedly, the rent at the time of the filing of the R.C. was only Rs.1,000/- and the Rent Controller was having the jurisdiction to entertain the R.C, the Rent Controller examined the landlady - respondent herein as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A5 on her behalf. The petitioner herein - tenant is examined as RW1 and RW2 is also examined. The Rent Controller, upon considering oral and 2 documentary evidence, held that the husband of the respondent retired from Government service and her son is educated unemployed person want to start medical business at Mahabubnagar and in fact her sons carried on the medical and general store business at Maruthi Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad under the name and style of "Anand Medical and General Stores" and the same was closed. Since they have got only one non-residential premises at Mahabubnagar they intend to start the business for self-employment of her sons and also to rehabilitate her retired husband. There is no evidence on record in rebuttal to the evidence of the landlady PW- 1 as the said premises is required for running the medical and general stores for her sons and by her retired husband. It is also stated that Mahabubnagar is the native place of the landlady, her husband and sons intend to settle down at Mahabubnagar having their own nonresidential business at Mahabubnagar. The Rent Controller satisfied the bona fide requirement of the said premises for running the business by the sons of the respondent since the sons of the respondent have already got experience in the line of medical and general store business. The Rent Controller accordingly allowed the petition and the respondent- petitioner herein was directed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said order dated 3-4-1999, the petitioner filed RCA2/1999 on the file of the Rent Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. The Rent Appellate Authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record the judgment of the Rent Controller, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed R.C.A.2/1999 by order dated 29/01/2001.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner - tenant submits that the respondent has not pooved her bona fide requirement for commencing the business in the said premises and, therefore, both the Courts below erred in ordering the eviction of the petitioner herein. It is stated that to carry on the medical business, a licence is required and her sons are not qualified to run the medical shop and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said premises is bona fide required to commence the business.

(3.) It is to be stated the fact that the sons of the respondent carried on the medical and general stores at Hyderabad has not been denied or disputed. Even if the lower appellate authority agreed to consider such a contention and held that the sons were having medical shop business at Maruthi Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. Since the doctor left the premises they have closed the business and in fact the petitioner - tenant himself deposed that the sons of the respondent and her husband were having medical business for some time at Hyderabad and, therefore, it is an admitted fact that the sons and the husband of the respondent are doing the medical shop business at Hyderabad and that it was closed. They have experience in carrying on the medical shop and not only they are intending to open medical shop but also general stores. It is the look out of the sons and husband of the respondent to secure a licence from the qualified person and they can carry on the business on partnership or they can make some other arrangement even otherwise there is no impediment to carry on the general stores. The learned appellate authority considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishna, 1996 (5) SCC 353, and the judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar Jain v. Lalchand Ahuja, 2000 (3) LS 351, wherein it was held that once the landlord establishes his intention to start his own business and requires the premises for his own bona fide requirement, the tenant cannot contend that the landlord has no practical experience and incapable of starting the business. The landlord is the best Judge in deciding or choosing his own accommodation and entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement.