KAMALA BAI Vs. A K SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed by the land lady under Sec. 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') arises on the following material facis.

(2.) The revision - petitioner is the owner of H. No. 5-9-311 situated at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 5-7-1974 from its previous owner Smt Santhosh Kunwar. The said building which is in two floors consisted of a total of 14 rooms, 3 bath rooms-cum-latrines, one verandah and a garage. When the building was owned by Smt. Santosh Kunwar, it was originally let out in favour of one Dr. Kamle towards his residence Dr. Kamle was also using the premises for his genera] practice as a Medical Practitioner. After Dr. Kamle vacated the premises, the respondent Dr A.K. Shah became the tenant of Smt. Santosh Kunwar on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The respondent was residing in the upstair portion of the house and was using the ground floor as a Nursing Home which he was running under the style of "Pradeep Nursing and Maternity Home". Smt. Santosh Kunwar had earlier filed R.C. No. 1498/68 on the file of the Rent Controller for evicting the respondent on various grounds stated in Ex. R-4, but subsequently that petition was dismissed on 27-10-1967 for default.. After Smt. Santosh Kunwar sold the property to the revision-petitioner, the revision- petitioner filed R.C. No. 418/74 which has given raise to this revision. Though eviction was sought also on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the period 1st July 1974 till the end of October 1974. the concurrent finding of both the courts below is that there was no such wilful default. Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner has rightly not canvassed the correctness of that finding in this revision.

(3.) The revision-petitioner, however, has been living as a tenant of one Narsamma in premises No. 4-1-165, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad. The revision - petitioner has no house of her own. Her family consisted besides herself, her husband, her mother-in-law and 10 children. The revision- petitioner sought the eviction of the respondent mainly on the ground that she bonafide required the premises in question for her own occupation. The concurrent finding of both the courts below is that her requirement is bona fide. None-the-less, both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority refused to direct the eviction of the respondent being of the view that the facts of the case stand governed by Motllal and another v. Nanak Chand and others The finding recorded is that the suit premises was taken on rentby the tenant from the original landlady not only for residential purpose but also for non-residential purpose and the lease being a composite lease, the landlady cannot apply for eviction on the ground that she requires the suit premises for her personal occupation. Mr. Ramachandra Reddy questioned the correctness of this conclusion. According to him, the premises which was a residential building, had never lost its character of a residential building despite the fact that the respondent, a Doctor by profession, used part of the prtmises as a nursing home to suit his professional requirements. Mr. Venkatarami Reddy, appearing for the tenant maintained that the Supreme Court's decision in Motila's case governs the facts of the case and he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Miss. S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand. a Before appreciating these rival submissions, the relevant provisions of the Act may be noticed.