K L SETTY Vs. M LAKSHMIKANTHA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a revision by the iandlords petitioners under Sec. 22 of the A,P. Buildings (Lease, Ren? and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against the order of the Appellate Authorty in Rent Control Appeal No. 7/79 setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Adoni, in R.C. P.No. 10/78.

(2.) The suit premises in question is the pial portion of house No. 407 in ward No.18 of Adoni Municipality. The petitioners are the admitted owners of house No. 407 which, besides the petition schedule pial portion consisted of a godown and some vacant space to the north of the petition schedule pial portion. The petition schedule portion end the godown were both leased to K.C. Bhasndare & Brothers Irom whom, the respondent tenant obtained a sub-lease of the petition schedule pial portion in which he was carrying on business in stationery. The three petitioners are brothers. They are unemployed, but belong to the trading community of Vyayas Of them, the 1st petitioner is a graduate and petitioners 2 and 3 are under-graduates. In about June or July 1977, the petitioners excused desire bhandre brothers of whom Chegalal (PW-3) is a partner. that they want the petition schedule porfior for purports of their business want wanted P.W.3 vacate the pial portion. PW 3 agreed to give up his rights over the pial portion and has entered into a fresh lease with petitioners in about October 1 977, giving up his tenancy in respect of the pial portion. As at that time the respondent was still in possesion pial portion as a sub-lessee, the respondent was directed to atorn she tenancy in favour of the petitioners. The finding of fact which is now concluded is that the respondent agreed to pay the rents direct to the petitioners from November, 1977.

(3.) The petitioners' case is that ths resoondent was then repairing another shop belonging to him and he promissed to vacate the suit premises in about two or three months' time by which time, he hoped to complete the repairs "of his another shop, but contray to that understanding the respondent failed to vacate the premises. They filed the eviction petition alleging, among other grounds, the ground of wilful default in the pyvment of rents and that they required the premises bonafide for business which they intended to carry on in the suit premises The respondent resisted the application alleging that the petitioners are not his landlords; he never agreed to become a direct tenant under the petitioners he was paying the rents annually to Bhsndare Brothers and there was no default, rnuchless wilful default in the payment of rents According to him, Bhandara Brothers demanded araise in the annual rent from Rs. 450/-to Rs. 1800/-. and as he did not agree to raise the rent to that extent, Bhardare Brothers and the petitioners have colluded and brought into existence a revised t, nency agreement between thamselves excluding the suit premses and the eviction petition is filed with an oblique motive as the respondent had not agreed to pay the enhanced rert as demanded of him by Bhandare Brothers. He also denied that the petitioners bona fide required she premises for a business which they intended to carry on.