BATCHU RAMAKRISHNA Vs. GOLLA VENKATA KOTESWARARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment dated 9-7-2001 in RCA.No.25 of 1997 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, confirming the order of eviction dated 28-7-1997 in RCC.No.47 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry. The tenants-respondents 3 and 4 in the eviction petition are the appellants.

(2.) Necessary averments for the disposal of this revision petition briefly are as follows: Golla Subbayya, who is the father of the eviction petitioners, in or about 1964 leased out the petition schedule premises to the first respondent - Batchu China Koteswara Rao on a monthly rent of Rs.l25=-00. From the year 1980 the monthly rent is Rs. 400=00. The petitioners sought the eviction of the tenant first respondent on three grounds. The first ground is that after taking the petition schedule premises for rent, the tenant installed an oil extractor in the schedule premises and its use caused damage to the building. The second ground is that petitioners 1 and 2 bona fide require the petition schedule premises for their personal occupation to carry on kirana business by petitioners 1 and 2 in the petition schedule premises. The third ground is that in the adjoining lane, the first respondent - tenant was constructing his own building, petitioners demanded him to vacate petition schedule premises for their personal occupation, the tenant agreed to vacate and shift his business to his own building after the construction was over, but he did not shift his business to his own premises after the construction was over and the tenant leased out some portions to third parties. The tenant - first respondent filed a counter opposing the eviction petition. He denied that the oil extractor machinery caused any damage to the petition schedule premises. He denied that petitioners 1 and 2 bona fide require to occupy the petition schedule premises to do their own business. According to him the landlords demanded enhancement of the monthly rent to Rs.800=00 per month and he did not agree for the same and therefore the eviction petition is filed with a mala fide intention. He pleaded that the building in the adjoining lane is a joint property of himself, his wife and sons, it is useful for godown purposes only, after reconstruction the old tenants again reoentered and it is not fit for carrying on his business. After the tenant - first respondent filed his counter, he died pending disposal of the eviction petition. Thereupon his wife and children, namely, respondents 2 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent - tenant. They adopted the counter filed by the first respondent - tenant. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Rent Controller. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller opined that the tenants are not liable to be evicted on the ground of causing damage to the petition schedule premises. He accepted the case of the landlords that they bona fide require the petition schedule premises for the occupation by petitioners 1 and 2 to carry on their own business and ordered eviction of the tenants. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the tenants preferred an appeal in RCA.No.25 of 1997 before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered all the contentions urged before him and the material available on record. He concurred with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. He dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, respondents 3 and 4 in the eviction petition alone preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) At this juncture it is necessary to point out another aspect. During the pendency of the appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry, the tenants filed a petition requesting the Appellate Authority to permit the tenants to file an additional counter in the eviction petition. The landlords filed a counter in the said petition and opposed the said petition. The tenants filed another petition along with some documents and requested the Appellate Court to receive those documents as additional evidence on their behalf. The Appellate Court allowed both the applications. It received the additional counter filed by the tenants. It also received all the documents produced by the tenants as additional evidence in the appeal and marked them as Exs.B-24 to B-34 on behalf of the tenants - respondents. According to the averments in the additional counter, the father of the tenants (sic. landlords) entered into an agreement with the first respondent - tenant to sell the petition schedule premises to the first respondent -tenant. It is also further pleaded that after the appeal was filed, the tenants were paying the house tax payable to the petition schedule premises. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of the appeal, in pursuance of a Civil Court decree affirmed by the High Court, the landlords took possession of an adjoining shop room and as the landlords are in possession of the said shop room, which is a non-residential building, the landlords are not entitled to evict the respondents and seek possession of petition schedule non-residential premises on the ground of carrying on business by the petitioners 1 and 2. The Appellate Authority considered the additional evidence and the contentions raised in the additional counter and found that the alternative accommodation mentioned in the additional counter is not suitable for carrying on business in kirana by the landlords. Regarding the agreement to sell the petition schedule premises, the Appellate Court disbelieved and rejected the version of the tenants.