TIRUVAIPATI ANANDA BABU Vs. KANAMARLAPUDI MANIKYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(v), 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) of the Act seeking the eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule non-residential premises. It is averred that the monthly rent payable in respect of the premises is Rs.650/- which is payable at the end of every tenancy month. Originally the father of the petitioners herein was the tenant and after his demise the petitioners continued in the said non- residential premises as the tenants. It is case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners did not pay or tender the rents for the months of April and May, 1990 even up to 31-5-1990. On 16-6-1990 a notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. The petitioners thus committed wilful default in payment of rents is the case set up by the respondents-landlords. It is also their case that they belong to a trading family and the second respondent intended and capable to do fancy goods business and such business was run by the father of the second respondent for half a century. It was pleaded that the second respondent is the sole earning member and he is looking after the present business under the name and style of 'Jayalakshmi General Stores' in a rented premises belonging to N.Panduranga Vithal. The landlord filed eviction petition in R.C.C.No.248 of 1983 and the same was allowed on the ground of sub-lease. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against which the respondents preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.368 of 1987. It is under those circumstances, the respondents-landlords set up the plea of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for carrying on their own business. It is also the case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners have secured an alternative accommodation and therefore, their eviction from the premises would not result in any injustice.

(2.) The petitioners filed their counter denying all the averments and allegations made in the petition. They have pleaded that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rents. The respondents herein have filed the eviction petition in order to seek enhancement of rent. They have denied of securing any alternative accommodation for themselves. It is also pleaded by them that the requirement of the premises by the respondents-landlords is not a bona fide one.

(3.) A perusal of the pleadings would reveal that eviction petition has been filed mainly on three grounds, namely; (i) wilful default in payment of rents by the tenants: (ii) bona fide requirement of the landlords for their own business purpose; and (iii) that the tenants have secured alternative accommodation for themselves.