B K AGARAWAL Vs. S MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in R.C. No.691 /95 on the file of I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad and R.A. No.114/2000 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The respondent herein-the landlady filed eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also tenant securing alternative accommodation. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement but however negatived the ground of securing alternative accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.A. No.114/2000 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the same was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(2.) Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the tenant made the following submissions:- Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the tenant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and would maintain that the bona fide personal requirement had not been established. The learned counsel also would point out that the landlady failed to prove the character of the building being residential. The learned counsel also pointed out to the documentary evidence and would contend that in the light of the documentary evidence, it is clear that the premises was intended to be used for non-residential purpose. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the portions of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the witnesses examined on behalf of the tenant and had pointed out both to Section 10 and Section 18 of the Act and had explained the scope and ambit of Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10 (3)(c) of the Act and had pointed out that Sections 10 and 18 of the Act are independent provisions and though there is ample evidence relating to the character of the building being non-residential, the Courts below erred in ordering eviction for bona fide personal requirement of the landlady for residential purpose. The learned counsel also had pointed out the deviation adopted by the Appellate Authority from the reasoning which had been adopted by the learned Rent Controller and had pointed out to the relevant portions.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Dilip Kumar Shiradkar, the learned counsel representing the landlady had taken this Court through the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority in relation to the ground of bona fide personal requirement and would submit that in the light of the clear evidence of P.W. 1 available on record, bona fide personal requirement had been established. The learned Counsel also explained the scope and ambit of Section 18 of the Act. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions in relation to the ground of bona fide personal requirement and would contend that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts, the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed.