MOHAMMAD MOONIDDIN Vs. YADAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition arising under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 is the landlord. The petition was failed by the landlord under Section 10 of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondent from the Malgi bearing Municipal No. 21-2-267 situated at Lad bazar, Hyderabad on grounds of wilful default in payment, of rent and personal requirement. The petitioner purchased the said Malgi on 19-8-1969. The allegation in the petit on is that there was a failure to pay the rent evidently with a view to harass the petitioner since the said purchase and thus the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent. In so far as the bonafide requirement for personal occupation is concerned, the petitioner stated that he intended to start the bangle shop of his own in the Malgi. It is also further stated that there is congregation of bangle shops in the Lad bazar and hence the Malgi is most appropriate one for starting Bangle business. The petitioner was having sufficient capital and there is no premises of his own and he is not in the possesion of any other premises in the city of Hyderabad for doing bangles business. The respondent pleaded that there is no wilful default and denied the personal requirement alleged by the petitioner. It was stated by the respondent that he was occupying the premises since last 35 years. The petitioner has been intentionally evading to receive the rent to create the ground of wilful default. The requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. The experience and availability of the capital cannot be considered as sufficient grounds for bona fide requirement and eviction. It is also alleged that the petitioner is already having his business at two different places in the same locality as bangle merchant. Both the primary authority as well as the appellate authority held that no wilful default in payment of rent is made out and the bona fide requirement for personal occupation is not satisfied. It is not necessary to dilate upon the issue of wilful default as the civil revision petition is confined to the bona fide requirement only.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities are devoid of evidence and the relevant evidence is not appreciated in proper perspective thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in the Civil Revision Petition and even if there is some ambiguity or any lapse in the process of arriving at the conclusion, the Courts should lean towards the tenant.

(3.) It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the rinding of the Rent Controller, which is as follows :