MARAPPAREDDIGARI VENKATA REDDY Vs. M SIDDAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.Venkata Reddy filed H.R.C. No. 7 of 1961 against his tenant, Siddam Chetty under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960) (hereafter referred to for convenience as the Act) praying for eviction. The tenant contested the petition. The learned Rent Controller, after recording evidence and making a personal inspection of the premises, allowed the petition and ordered eviction. The tenant filed C.M.A. No. 13 of 1962 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The latter allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord filed this Revision Petition against that order passed in appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows ; The landlord is a hardware merchant. He keeps a hardware shop in Shop No. 14 in the Bazaar Street in Tirupathi. Next to it, separated by wooden planks, there is another small shop (Shop No. 15) belonging to the petitioner which he had given on rent to another tenant for keeping a tailor shop. A few shops further off, there were shops Nos. 18 and 19 also owned by the landlord. Of these, shop No. 19 was occupied by one Arumugam by keeping a hair-cutting saloon. Shop No. 18 Was occupied by the present tenant, Siddam Chetty on a rent of Rs. 20 per month. He was running a jeweller's shop. Each of these shops Nos. 18 and 19 was about 19 feet East to West and about 5'or 6' in width. They were separated by a brick wall which was 1' 2" thick. The learned Rent Controller found that, if this brick wall was removed, the total length of the resulting sungle unit North to South would be 11'. Shop No. 18 is the shop which is concerned in these proceedings It is described in the petition schedule as 6' X 18' in size.

(3.) The landlord, who has five sons, contended in his petition that the second son Sreenivasulu Reddy, had married and began to live separately, that he had learnt the hard-ware business and wanted in that line to have separate business of his own and that, therefore, the landlord required the two shops (shop Nos. 18 and 19) for being converted into one unit which would be capable of housing a hard-ware shop. The respondent-tenant contested the petition raising contentions as follows: His premises was too small and was unfit for carrying on any trade in hardware. The landlord was a sickly old man. He had not been attending to business from some four years back. His son alone was carrying on the business and there was no need for him to have a new shop. The landlord demanded a higher rent of Rs. 30 per month but the tenant did not agree. Therefore, the landlord filed the petition with a view to harass the tenant.