MADALA CHINNA SUBBA RAO Vs. KAKUMANI PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent-land lord applied before the Rent Controller, Guntur, in R.C.C.No.95/79 for evicting the petitioner under Sec. 10 of the Act on the ground that the portion leased in favour of the petitioner for purposes of a cloth shop is requi red bonafide as aditional accommodation for purposes of his residence The Rent Controller, Guntur, found the requirement of the respondent to be bonafide and that the hardship which may be caused to the petitioner by granting an order of eviction will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A.No. 25/81 before the Appellate Authority, Guntur who confirmed the order of eviction The tenant has preferred this revision.

(2.) The main building of which the suit schedule portion forms part originally belonged to the Joint family of one Kakumanu Subba Rao and his sons. It was located in Sale Veedhi, Kothapet, Guntur. The said street developed as a commercial area for business in cloth and owners of buildings in that street including Subba Rao let out the rooms facing the street for non-residential. purposes. The petitioner took on lease the schedule premises some time in the year 1960 and has since then been conducting business in cloth pieces. The portion let out originally consisted of room Nos.2 and 3 in the northern verandah. The petitioners removed the intervening wall and made it a bigger room of the dimensions of 7' x 35' according to the landlord or 7' x 25' according to the petitioner. Over the years, the monthly rents have increased from Rs.33/- in 1960 to Rs. 120/- by September, 1976. There was a partition in 1976 between Subba Rao and his sons and in that partition, the suit premises including another portion behind it fell to the share of the landlord. Subsequent to the partition, the petitioner attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent. The residentail portion of the respondent consisted of four small rooms of the dimensions of 5' 21," x 6' 2"; 7' 6" x 5' 2"; 12' 6" x5'2 and 8' 2 x 3' 10". The residential portion opens into a gulli on its east. The respondent has children and three of his sons became majors by 1979. The Commissioner appointed in the proceedings found that the approach to the kitchen is very narrow and inconvenient for ingress and egress. The concurrent finding of the two Tribunals below that the respondent was in bonafide need of additional accommodation for purpose of his residence is based on a critical appraisal of the evidence and the correctness of that finding cannot be permitted to be Questioned in this revision.

(3.) Mr, Seetharamayya, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the respondent can seek additional accommodation if he required it for a non-residential purpose but that the Act does not permit him to apply for eviction of the petitioner for the need of the respondent for additional accommodation for his residential purposes; the Bench decisions of this Court in Balaiah v. Lachaiah (1) 1965 (2) An. W.R. 95 on which the tribunals below have placed reliance is to be distinguished and that even otherwise, the said decision requires reconsideration and that taking an over all view of the evidence, the hardship caused to the petitioner in evicting him will outweigh the advantage to the landlord.