GUNABATULA PAPACHARY Vs. COUNTRY TOBACCO MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of proceedings under theAndhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), ordering eviction of the petitioners from two non-residential buildings. The respondent is common to both the revision petitions. The respondent is the Country Tobacco Merchant's Association, Vijayawada, represented by its President. The respondent is a registered association, it purchased the building bearing door No. 11-42-23- 1 and 2 in Ramgopal street on 2-6-1969. The petitioners are the tenants of two portions of the building in the ground floor. The association filed' the applications H.R.C. No. 101 & 107 of 1971 for eviction of the tenants the petitioners herein. In the first petition, eviction was sought on the ground that the building is required for the personal occupation of the Association. in the second petftion, apart from the ground of personal requirement, it was also alleged that there was wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant These two applications were disposed of along with another application H. R. C.I 16/71. The Rent Controller held that the Association was not carrying on any business and that ft did not bonaflde require the building for its personal use. In H. R. C. No. 107/1971, the Rent Controller held that there was no wilful default in payment of rents. H. R. C. No. 116/1971, was howevar allowed on the ground that the tenant therein had sublet the premises.

(2.) The matter was carried in appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge. Vijayawada, The learned Judge allowed the appeals against the orders in H. R. C. No. 101/1971 and 107/1971 holding that the buildings were bonaflde required by the Association for its business and also as additional accommodation. The appeal preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction in H. R. G. 116/1971 was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. Three revision petitions have been fifed in this court as C. R. P. Nos. 849 and 850 and 886 of 1973. C. R. P. 886/1953, against H. R. C. Nos. 116/1971 was dismissed as having become infructuous.

(3.) In these two revision petitions C. R. P No. 849 and 850/1973 the tenants challenge the view taken by the appellate authority that the requirement of the Association was bonaflde. In C.R P. 849/1973 the finding of the appellate authority that there was wilful default in payment of rent, is also challenged.