B SURESH BABU Vs. POGULA SIVASANKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the Counsel representing the revision petitioner, and Sri Veera Reddy, the Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The landlord-5. Suresh Babu aggrieved by the reversing order made in C.M.A. No.5/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, which was preferred as against the order of eviction made in R.C.C. No.2/97 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, had preferred the present C.R.P. The ground on which the landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant is bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 to 4, and marked Exs.B.l to B.15 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the landlord requires the premises bona fide and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein-the tenant in the aforesaid R.C.C., filed C.M.A. No.5/2000, which was reversed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. Hence, the present C.R.P.

(3.) Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority, and would comment that bona fide personal requirement is clearly established and hence, the Appellate Authority erred in reversing the well-considered findings of the learned Rent Controller. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and would maintain that it is the wish of the landlord to commence a particular business at a particular premises and the tenant cannot dictate what the landlord must do. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority had totally erred in reversing the well-considered findings of the learned Rent Controller. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the under-noted decisions: Dattatratya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune and another, AIR 1999 SC 2226; Urimi Kamakshamma (Died) and others v. Bolem Seethamma, 2002 (3) ALT 490; Shiv Sarup Gupa v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222; Mohd. Moonuddin v. A. Yadagiri, 1982 (2) ALT 154; B. Ataullah v. K. Nisar Ahmed, 2001 (5) ALD 517; R.C. Tamrakar and another v. Nidi Lekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431; M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, (2001) 2 SCC 355; P.S. Pradeep Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, (2004) 5 SCC 241 and Akhileshwar Kumar and others v. Mustaqim and others, (2003) 1 SCC 462.