PALLICHERLA SUSEELAMMA Vs. KONDAPALLI SAROJANAMMA DIED PER LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against the order dated 7-6-2000 in CMA No.7 of 1994 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Nellore, setting aside the order dated 14-7-1994 in RCC No.23 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nellore.

(2.) This revision petition is filed by the tenants. Smt. Sarojanamma filed eviction petition seeking the eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal requirement for occupying the petition schedule premises by her third son Murali (PW2) to carry on business in gunny bags. The tenants resisted the eviction petition taking the plea that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirement of he landlady for occupation for the business of her third son (PW2) is bona fide. However, on the ground that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings another tenant of the landlady vacated another shop room and it was occupied by another son of the landlady and as the landlady is already is possession of one non-residential shop room, she is not entitled to seek the eviction of another tenant for her non-residential purposes. On that ground the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller, the landlady preferred an appeal in CMA No.7 of 1994 before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlady Sarojanamma died. Her husband and her sons came on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Sarojanamma in the appeal. The appellate Court also found that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide. He did not accept the reasoning given by the Rent Controller to dismiss the eviction petition. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and in the result, allowed RCC No.23 of 1989 filed by the landlady and ordered the eviction of the tenants. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition is filed by the tenants.

(3.) The Rent Controller followed a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Vidyavathi Bai v. Shankerlal, 1987 (2) ALT 550, and dismissed the eviction petition. The Full Bench of this Court in the above decision held as follows: