M A RAOOF Vs. MOHD 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. The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of P.W. 1, R.W. 1 and R.W. 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 bona fide personal requirement and the tenant securing alternative accommodation, buthadreversed 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.

(3.) 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 P.W. 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 bona fide 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 submission 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 v. Raghunath Prasad, Gantusa H. Baddi v. Meerabai G. Pai, Venkayala Veeraraghavulu v. M/s. Godavari Metal Rolling Mills Contractor's Firm.