CENTRAL AUTO AGENCIES Vs. GOPAL DAS J BHUPATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant both before the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority in R.C. No.130 of 1990 and R.A. No.1 19 of 1996 preferred the civil revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).

(2.) The respondent in the CRP-landlord filed R.C. No.130 of 1990 on the file of the n Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, praying for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of PW1 and RW1, marked Exs.P1 to P11 and Exs.R1 to R.136 and after recording findings, ultimately ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter by way of appeal R.A. No.119 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad and before the appellate authority, the eviction petition was amended by taking yet another plea of the tenant securing alternative accommodation and the tenant and filed a counter denying the allegations. Before the appellate authority, on behalf of the tenant, the landlord of the other premises, on the ground of securing alternative accommodation was examined as RW2. Exs.R137 to 139 also were marked. The appellate authority at Para '9' framed two points for consideration. (1) Whether the petitioner/landlord requires the suit premises for additional accommodation for running his business ? (2) Whether the respondent/tenant has secured alternative accommodation ?

(3.) The appellate authority recorded the reasons at Paras 10 and 11 and ultimately dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred under Section 22 of the Act. Submissions of Sri T. Sreenivasa Murthy: Sri T. Sreenivasa Murthy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner- tenant made the following submissions : The learned Counsel would comment that in the light of the evidence of both the landlord and tenant, the premises in question cannot be said to be forming one building as such and they are different and hence, the ground of requirement of the landlord by way of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act would not be applicable. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Gangaram v. N. Shankar Ready, AIR 1989 SC 302, in this regard. The learned Counsel also had further taken this Court through the findings recorded both by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority and would comment that both the Courts below had not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and in view of the wider powers conferred on this Court as revisional Court under Section 22 of the Act, the said findings can definitely be disturbed. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the findings recorded in relation to securing alternative accommodation also cannot be sustained, in the light of the clear evidence of RW2. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Bulaki Dass v. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1982 Del. 117, Sistla Ramalakshmamma v. M/s.Lakshmi General Stores, represented by its Managing Partner, Sistla Lakshmipathy Sastry, 1974 (2) An.WR 209 and P. Murali Rao and another v. Raghunatha Rao Ghatge, 2005 (2) ALD 395 = 2005 (1) ALT 731. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had pointed out to the subsequent event, which had been specified in C.M.P.No.2536 of 2005 and would contend that even in the light of the said stand taken by the tenant, the order of eviction cannot be sustained.