M A RAOOF Vs. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in both the Tribunals below had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) The respondent herein/landlord filed R.C.No.701/92 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of landlord requiring the suit mulgi for personal occupation, tenant obtaining alternative accommodation and also on yet another ground - the tenant making alterations and additions impairing the value and utility of the said building.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of PW-1, RW-1 and RW-2 and marking Exs.P-1 to P-24 and Exs.R-1 to R-9 ultimately allowed the R.C. and aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.A.No.125/96 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the appellate authority had confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and the tenant securing alternative accommodation, but had reversed the same as far as the ground of acts of waste is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. Sri Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant submitted that the landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands and the same is evident by virtue of several admissions made by PW-1, the landlord in cross-examination. The learned Counsel also would contend that since the landlord is having several shops, the requirement is only a fancy requirement and not bonafide personal requirement. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the evidence on record clearly discloses that the landlord had suppressed the fact that he is owning several other shops. The learned Counsel also commented that no acceptable legal evidence was let in relating to the tenant having alternative accommodation and hence ordering eviction on that ground cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties and the subsequent amendment to the pleadings and also the conduct of the parties. The learned Counsel also had made submissions about the burden of proof and the wrong casting of the burden of proof and also had touched the aspect that fundamental principles of pleading and proof had been totally ignored while appreciating the evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on HASMATH RAI Vs. RAGHUNATH PRASAD 1, GANTUSA H.BADDI Vs. MEERABAI G.PAI 2. VENKAYALA VEERARAGHAVULU Vs. M/s. GODAVARI METAL ROLLING MILLS CONTRACTOR'S FIRM 3. Per contra, Sri Suryanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel had drawn my attention to the concurrent findings recorded by both the Tribunals below relating to the grounds of bonafide personal requirement and the tenant securing alternative accommodation. The learned Counsel also would maintain that though there is clear evidence relating to acts of waste, the appellate authority definitely had erred in not ordering eviction on the said ground also. The learned Counsel had taken me through the portions of the order of the appellate authority touching this aspect and had commented that the appellate authority is not justified in setting aside the said finding and inasmuch as the landlord was successful on other two grounds, in a Revision filed by the tenant, the landlord is definitely entitled to canvass the correctness of such adverse finding relating to one of the grounds. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Ex.P-1 and also the other oral and documentary evidence and had concluded that in view of the limitations in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since there is no serious legal infirmity pointed out, the said concurrent findings cannot be disturbed at the Revisional stage and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on MUDIGONDA CHANDRA MOULI SASTRY Vs. BHIMANEPALLI BIKSHALU AND OTHERS 4, GOPINATH Vs. MANMOHAN SHAH 5, K.V.S.S.PRASADA RAO Vs. GODAVARI BAI AND OTHERS 6, CHALLARAM & CO. Vs. PRAGALLAPATI ADI KUMAR 7 and KODANGI SETHU MADHAVA RAO Vs. CHAKKA PRABHAKAR RAO 8.