LAWS(APH)-1984-12-47

JAGANNADHAM Vs. LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA

Decided On December 03, 1984
MONINGL JAGANNADHAM Appellant
V/S
TANKALA LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is the landlady. Petitioner is the tenant. The respondent laid the action under Section 10 (3) (Hi) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), for short "the Act". The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition. On appeal, it was reversed and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Thus this revision petition.

(2.) The case of the respondent is that she is- running medical shop business in rental house opposite to the demised premises, and she purchased the premises under a registered sale-deed dated July 30, 1980 from her vendor for valuable consideration. By a registered notice dated August 7, 1980, the petitioner was intimated of the petitioner acknowledged the same. Then she got issued a registered notice dated August 24; 1980 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises for her occupation. Since the petitioner did not vacate, she initiated action under the above provision, for his ejectment.

(3.) The petitioner resisted contending that the claim of the respondent is not bona fide. On an earlier occasion, she obtained possession of different building from her tenant on the ground that the premises was required for personal occupation. After obtaining possession, she leased it out initially to the Lipton Tea Company and after ejectment, instead of occupying it, leased out as godowns of Block Development Officer, for non-residential purpose and then to a medical firm. That premises is suitable for doing her business for more than twenty two years to the date of application. Therefore the petition is not bona fide. The Controller has held that the claim of the respondent is not bona fide and dismissed the petition. The appellate authority held that the requirement if the respondent is bona fide. It also held that the proceedings in the earlier case of ejectment for personal occupation of a previous tenant is irrelevant for the purpose of this case. Thus it ordered ejectment of the petitioner.