N RAJ KUMAR Vs. SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 14.9.1998 in R.A.No.1 of 1998 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy at Saroornagar, setting aside the order dated 5.12.1997 of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, East and North, Rangareddy, in R.C.No.28 of 1993 on his file.

(2.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlady filed eviction petition against the tenant on only one ground. The suit premises is a non-residential premises wherein the tenant is doing medical business. The landlady sought for possession of the suit premises on the ground that she is in need of the mulgi for the purpose of opening a medical and general stores and also to put up her residence in the room attached to the said mulgi. The tenant contended that the requirement alleged by the landlady is not a bona fide requirement. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller held that the landlady as well as her husband did not depose that the landlady requires the building for starting a medical shop by the landlady and they merely deposed that they require the entire building for their personal occupation and further held that the bona fide requirement of the landlady is not proved by the landlady. However, during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Controller, it was contended on behalf of the landlady that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the tenant committed willful default in payment of rents and on that ground the tenant is liable to be evicted. The tenancy court did not accept that contention holding that the landlady cannot seek the eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default when there is no pleading and when there is no amendment to the petition to include the ground of wilful default. Accordingly the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition by his order dated 5.12.1997.

(3.) In the appeal, the appellate court held that in the absence of any evidence that the landlady wanted the suit mulgi for her business, her request for her occupation of the suit premises for her residence cannot be accepted and further held that the landlady failed to establish that she is in bona fide requirement of the suit premises for her residence.