VENKATESHAM Vs. SREENIVAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is preferred by the unsuccessful landlord being aggrieved of a reversing order made in R.A. No. 15/99 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The Revision Petitioner-landlord filed R.C. No. 188/96 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, praying for the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. It was pleaded that inasmuch as the revision petitioner-landlord retired from service w.e.f., 30-10-1996 and after retirement he intends to carry on some business inasmuch as he is the only earning member of the family, the landlord requires the premises bona fide for the said purpose. Before the learned Rent Controller the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and the 1st respondent was examined as RW.1 and R.W.2 also was examined. Exs. P.1 to P.4 and Exs. R.1 to R.4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C. and aggrieved by the same, the respondents in the R.C. the tenants carried the matter by way of appeal R.A. No. 15/99 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the appellants-tenants the respondents in the C.R.P., R.5 to R.15 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of the present revision petitioner, the 1st respondent in the said appeal R.A. No. 15/99 the landlord, Exs. P.5 to P.16 were marked. The Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence already recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also Exs. R.5 to R.15 and Exs. P.5 to P.16 marked as additional evidence, recorded a finding that P.W.1 himself deposed that he is not capable of doing any business and hence, the bona fide personal requirement is not established and accordingly, allowed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(2.) Sri Seshasayana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1 and had pointed out that both in chief and cross examination, P.W.1 categorically deposed that he intends to run the business for his livelihood and this is sufficient. The learned Counsel also would submit that the mere fact that P.W.1 had not deposed to carry on the business with the assistance of some other person by engaging him would not alter the situation in any way. The Counsel also would submit that on this ground, reversing the well-considered order of the learned Rent Controller be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the Appellate Authority having marked several documents like Exs. R.5 to R.15 and Exs. P.5 to P.16 in addition to the documents which had been already marked before the learned Rent Controller, recording findings in relation thereto without affording opportunity to the parties also cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, Sri D.V.S. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-tenants would maintain that the landlord is a retired old man who is incapable of running any business, whatsoever, and the ground of bona fide personal requirement is invented only for the purpose of throwing the tenants out without any just reason. The Counsel also would further contend that at any rate the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are well-considered findings and the learned Counsel also would contend that virtually the ground pleaded by the landlord is for additional accommodation and not bona fide personal requirement and in this view of the matter also, the findings are to be confirmed.