SHAIK BASHEER AHMED Vs. SARDAR MAHENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises an interpretation of the words 'for his own occupation' used in Section 10 (3)(a)(i)(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brevity) and whether such words would apply for personal use of the landlord alone or for his requirements also. The said question arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioners herein, who are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased, sole petitioner in R.C.C. No.40 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal District Munsif, Warangal, are the landlords of the petition schedule premises bearing Municipal No.14-2-102, 14-2-103 and 14-2-104 and the respondent herein is the tenant. Originally the deceased landlord filed the application seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and also on the ground that the landlord needs the petition schedule premises bonafidely for providing accommodation to his employees, who are working in his tannery and office. It is the case of the landlord that he is the partner in M/s. Shaik Mohammed and Company, Warangal and the employees are not local persons and do not have their own accommodation for their own residence in the Warangal City. It is further stated that as per the agreement entered into, accommodation has to be provided to them. The said employees are experienced technicians and their performance is satisfactory. If those employees are not provided with accommodation, they will leave job and in which event, there will be irreparable loss to them. The respondent-tenant has resisted the said petition denying the allegation of wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant also denied the bond fide requirement of the petition schedule premises and he further alleged that the requirement shown does not satisfy the provisions of law. It is further stated by the tenant that after the death of the first petitioner, the second petitioner is managing the affairs of the family and business and at his instance rent was also increased. It is further pleaded that after the demise of the first petitioner-landlord, no agreement was entered into and as such, eviction petition is not maintainable.

(3.) Before the trial Court, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-71 were marked.