M R VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. T SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in R.A.No.774 of 1994 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, filed this revision petition against the order confirming the order of Additional Rent Controller. Secunderabad, in R.C.No.177 of 1992 on his file.

(2.) Brief facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows: The revision petitioner is admittedly the landlord of the petition schedule premises. He filed the petition seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that he is residing in a rented house and he requires the petition schedule premises for his personal occupation. It is also pleaded that he is about to retire from service and he is not in possession of any residential premises of his own in the twin cities and as his sons are being educated, they require additional accommodation for their stay. It is the plea of the respondent-tenant that the present residence of the petitioner is free of rent, the said premises belongs to charitable institution and there is no person to claim right or title whatsoever in respect of the said premises. It is his further plea that the landlord wants to sell the petition schedule premises, that the tenant also requested the landlord to sell the premises to him as per the market value and the landlord demanded him enhancement of rent and when he refused to enhance the rent, the eviction petition is filed on false grounds. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller held that there is no satisfactory proof that the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide. He accordingly dismissed the tenancy (sic. eviction) petition. The appellate authority held that there are no compelling reasons forthcoming from the landlord for vacating the house in which he is residing for the last 40 years and accordingly held that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. He dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the reasoning of the two courts below is based on surmises and assumptions and the orders of two courts below are liable to be set aside. In this connection it is to be stated that the Rent Controller in his order stated that before eviction proceedings are commenced, the landlord issued a notice Ex.P-3 to the tenant and in that notice, the landlord did not disclose the reasons put forth in the tenancy (sic. eviction) petition for his seeking the petition schedule premises for his personal occupation. It is to be stated that before seeking eviction, no notice is contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Therefore, just because in the notice issued before commencement of eviction proceedings by the landlord detailed reasons for seeking eviction on the ground of requirement for personal occupation of the landlord are not disclosed, the said contention or plea of the landlord cannot simply be brushed aside.