SATYAVATHI Vs. SRIRAMA MURTBY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for brevity "the Act"), the issue that was the subject of spirited debate before us, was whether the requirement of the foster daughter of a landlord is the Bona fide requirement of the landlord himself within the ambit of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. The revision petition in the first instance came up for hearing before our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J. The learned Judge not only felt the absence of the direct decision on the question, but also was of the opinion that there wasconflict between the opinions expressed by our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. in CRP No. 2080/1977, and Kuppuswamy J. (as he then was)in Fateh Singh vs. Kavali Dulamma and therefore referred the matter for decision by a Division Bench. That is how, the matter is now before us.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are neither complicated nor disputed. The petitioner, Chavali Satyavathi, is the landlady of the premises bearing Door No. 26-15-21ocated on the main road in Vishakhapatnam. The respondent is her tenant in the said premises. One Dr. Varalaxmi is the foster daughter of the landlady. She is the natural daughter of landlady's brother Viswcswararao, who is an advocate practising at Visakapatnam. The petitioner asked the respondent to vacate the building in order to enable her foster daughter to set up private practice in Medicine and open a clinic in the premises. Since the respondent failed to vacate the petitioner filed a petition for eviction. That petition was resisted by the respondent mainly contending inter alia that the application for eviction lacked bona fides. It was pleaded that the foster daughter of the petitioner had already opened a clinic on the rear side of the premises, that the requirement of the building by the petitioner was not for any additional accommodation or for the purpose of starting any new business, but only for the purpose of shifting the clinic fiepi the jear portion of the premises in question to the front portion, and so the application for eviction was liable to be rejected.

(3.) The Rent Controller, on a critical scrutiny and careful appraisal of the evidence, found that the petition schedule premises was required bona fide for the purposes of occupation of the petitioner's foster daughter Dr. Varalaxmi to run her clinic and to enable her brother to open bis branch office in the rear portion, where the clinic of the said Dr. Varalaxmi was then located, that the petition schedule premises was admittedly required not for the purpose of any additional accommodation but only for the purpose of shifting the clinic of her foster daughter Dr. Varalaxmi, and that therefore the requirements of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act were not satisfied. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred au appeal to the appellate authority. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, on a careful reappraisal of the entire evidence and the relevant circumstances in the case, found that the petitioner was already in occupation of a non-residential portion where Dr. Varalaxmi her foster daughter, opened her clinic and was continuing her practice, that the premises in question was not for any additional accommodation or for opening a new clinic and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any order of eviction. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller was upheld by the appellate Authority. That in brief is the genesis of this revision-petition.