S NARAYANA Vs. V PAIDIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in this Civil Revision Petition arising under the AP Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of tha petition schedule building bearing No. 7-4-7 situated on the eastern side road of Ramgaraju street in Vizianagaram. The landlady got the property by virtue of the registered settlement deed executed in her favour on 2-11-73 by her father. The eviction petition is filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for carrying on business with the assistance of her husband and it was alleged that the tenant was subletting portions of the building for higher rent and actually sublet to one Janab Shaik Nanna Saheb. This petition is resisted by the tenant that he was paying rent regularly and the suit premises was never sublet and the petitioner has 3 or 4 houses in Vizianagaram which are suitable for carrying on the business of the husband of the petitioner. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction holding that the premises was required bonafide for personal use and occupation of the petitioner and the respondent sublet the suit premises. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the Rent Controller is not justified in holding that the tenant sub-let the suit premises and on the ground of bonafide requirement confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and the order of eviction and also held that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsist. This revision petition is confined to two grounds viz. the relationship of landlord and tenant and the bcnafide requirement.

(2.) In so far cs the relationship of the landlord and tenant it cannot be contravened thai the settlement deed was executed in in her favour and pursuant to the same necessary attornment was done and therefore the petitioner cannot have any whisper of grievance regarding the same. Therefore, the issue whether the landlord has established the bonafide requirement survives for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no pleading at all with regard to the bonafide requirement and even otherwise the pleading lacks particulars and on merits the bcnefide requirement is not established and the findings given by the authorities below are devoid of evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that all the necessary particulars have been furnished in the pleadings and the reasons for self-occupation have been fully indicated in the petition for eviction and in any event the pleading in conjunction with evidence does not cause any prejudice and the bonafide requirement has been established beyond doubt and the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities should not be interfered with. It is necessary to advert to the particulars given in the petition for eviction regarding the bonafide requirement. In para lll(e) it is stated as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement lacks particulars and on this score alone the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is substantial requirement with regard to the pleadings and no prejudice is caused to the tenant as there is sufficient evidence already on record and therefore the contention of the petitioner on this ground is untenable. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Tiruveedhi Ramanjaneyulu Vs. Araveti Venkata Subbamma (1980 (II) A L T'315) ln this case the landlady in the notice as well as in the eviction petition stated that she intends to do business without specifying any particular business but in the cross-examination the landlady stated that the premises is required for purpose of doing Mandi which was hitherto done by her son. On these facts, Jeevan Reedy J., held that the nature of the business proposed to be commenced has not been indicated either in the notice or in the eviction petition and as such the authorities erred in granting eviction. In Naganath vs Abdul Waheed (1881 (1) A P L J 62) it was held by Punnayya J., that the landlady has not specifically pleaded in the eviction petition the nature of the business which was proposed to be commenced and in view of the same the eviction cannot be acceded to. In the case cited the nature of the business proposed to be started and particulars have not been stated except mentioning that the premises is required for starting business. It is only in the cross-examination it was stated that the premises is required to start crockery and shamiyana business in the premises for the purpose of doing business by her son. In these circumstances Punnayya. J, concurring with the view oKJeevan Reddy, J, in 1980 (II) ALT 315 held that in the absence of indication of the nature of business in the notice, eviction petition and the chief-examination the concurrent finding of the Tribunals suffered from the taint of unreasonableness resulting in miscarriage of justice. In Vishnu Prasad Bhatt vs. K Narayana Rao (3) 1982 (I) A P L J 223 in the eviction petition it was stated that the petitioner belongs to the trading community and the premises was purchased to carry on their business in the entire building and they are not owning any non-residential building for the purpose of business which they have been carrying on. Differing from the view taken by Jeevan Reddy, and Punnayya JJ., it was held by Choudary J., that the lack of particulars or non-mention of nature of business in the pleadings cannot constitute the foundation for dismissing the eviction petition. In K.L Setty vs, M L K Setty (4)1982 (1) A P L J 345 it is held by Ramachandra Raju, J., that each case has to be decided on its own facts and if the tenant is not able to show any prejudice the denial of relief of eviction is not justified merely on the ground that the business which the landlord proposed to commence was not specified in the petition for eviction. Adverting to the decisions of Jeevan Reddy, and Punnayya JJ, it was held by Ramachandra Raju, J, that in the context of holding that bonafide requirement was not proved the factum of absence of indication of the nature of business in the eviction petition also caused prejudice to the tenant and it should not be understood that as a general rule that an eviction petition can be dismissed for the failure on the part of the landlord to specify particular business which he proposes to commence. In C R P 2242 and C R P 2243/8! dated 8-6-1982 Seetharam Reddy, J , held as follows adverting to the above three judgments:-