RANGALAL AGARWAL Vs. HIMAYATH BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Rangalal Agarwal, the unsuccessful tenant being aggrieved of reversing order made in R.A.No.222/2000 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience). Smt.Himayath Begum, the respondent in the C.R.P. filed R.C.No.234/98 as against the revision petitioner - tenant praying for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller had recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and R.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 and recorded a finding that the landlady was unable to establish that her husband and children have been carrying on business in the rented premises and ultimately dismissed the R.C. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady preferred R.A.No.222/2000 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and before the Appellate Authority Ex.R.6 - certified copy of Judgment in AS.No.42/99 on the file of I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, Ex.R.7 -Certified copy of Decree in A.S.No.42/99 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, Ex.R.8 and Ex.R.9 were marked on behalf of the tenant. The Appellate Authority at para 16 held that the requirement of the 3 sons of the landlady by name M.A.Khader (2nd son), M.A.Saleem (4th son) and M.A.Raheem (3rd son) is not bona fide but still the 1st and 5th sons requirement is continuing, and hence whether the requirement of 1st and 5th sons for their business is bona fide or not to be decided. After recording certain findings order of Rent Controller was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(2.) Sri Vilas Afzul Purkar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as tenant) would contend that the pleading of bona fide personal requirement by the landlady is as vague as it can be and the landlady was not examined. The learned Counsel also would contend that in the light of Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.9, it is clear that the husband of the landlady secured eviction of another tenant and occupied the said premises for carrying on business at Subash Road, by evicting the old tenant. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the averments made in the eviction petition and would contend that in the light of the pleading the finding relating to the requirement of the 5th son also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would explain that the eldest son had been carrying on business with the Tailoring material and just assisting his father. The learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the pleading, the Appellate Authority cannot make out a new case. The learned Counsel also would submit that non-examination of the landlady though always may not be fatal, in the present circumstances adverse inference may have to be drawn since if the landlady was put into the witness box, in cross-examination the tenant could have elicited several of the important aspects. The learned Counsel also would contend that to establish the ground of bona fide personal requirement, the mere desire is not sufficient and in the present case it is only a fanciful requirement and not a bona fide one. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Vidhyadhar V. Mankikrao (AIR 1999 S.C., 1441).

(3.) On the contrary Sri Venugopal, the learned Counsel representing the landlady had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and would contend that the bona fide requirement of any of the members of the family would be sufficient and broad and elaborate interpretation to be given to the expression bona fide requirement. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Authority is well justified in ordering eviction on the said ground. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain of the decisions.