SRIKAKULAM SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. PANDESHWARA JANARDHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been referred to a Division Bench by Neeladn Rao, J. by his order dated 7-3-1990. The learned Judge felt that in view of the Judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s. Central Tobacco Co., Bangalore Vs. Chandra Prakash (1) 1969 All India Rent Control Journal 702; Phiroze Bamanji Desai Vs. Chandrakant M.Patel and others (2) AIR 1974 S.C. 1059, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Parasuramiah Vs.Lakshmamma (3) AIR 1965 A.P. 220 requires reconsideration, as the said judgment of the Division Bench cast the burden of pleading and proving that the hardship caused to him by passing the eviction order will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition has come up before us.

(2.) Since the entire C.R.P. is placed before us, it is necessary for us to refer to the facts and the findings recorded by the lower tribunals.

(3.) Tenant is the petitioner in this revision. Landlord is the respondent. The landlord filed an application for eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act 15 of 1960),( for short The Act'), seeking eviction of the tenant from petition schedule premises on the ground that he requires the same for additional accommodation for the hotel business which he is running. It is stated in the application filed for eviction that originally the landJord is the tenant of the petition schedule building and that he has been running a hotel by name Bharat Cafe at Main Bazar, Etukuru Road, Guntur. Though the premises was taken by him on lease earlier from one Tripuramallu Radhakrishna Murthy, subsequently the same was purchased by him from the said owner. He also stated that he had taken on lease the contiguous buildings from others for the purpose of expanding his business. The tenant took the petition schedule premises on lease on 30.7.1978 for his business on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- agreeing to vacate by 30.7.1982, which he failed to do for the convenience of the customers and therefore, the same is required for the said purpose bona fide by him. A registered notice dated 26.7.1982 was issued to the tenant on his failure to vacate the premises. A reply dated 10.8.1982 has been sent by the tenant raising false and untenable pleas including the one attributing oblique motive to the landlord for enhancement of the rent. He has also stated in the petition that he will undergo lot of inconvenience for the business for which he requires the premises, if the eviction is not ordered, and, therefore, the petition has been filed seeking eviction of the tenant.