(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of eviction proceedings taken under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The tenant Is the petitioner in this revision petition. The ground urged for eviction of the petitioner by the respondent-landlord is that the building is required for his personal occupation as an additional accommodation. The respondent is the owner of a house In Hyderabad bearing two municipal numbers, 3-4-778 and 3-4-779. The petitioner is the tenant for the premises bearing No. 3-4-778. The landlord is in occupation of the premises bearing No. 3 4-779. According to the case of the landlord the two premises are two portions of the same building having a common roof, only a wall separating the two portions. The portion of the premises in his possession is not sufficient for the accommodation of the members of his family which has grown to a large extent, which includes three grown up sons and four grown up daughters, daughter-in-law, grand-sons and the respondent, his wife and two or three maid servants. Therefore the premises now in occupation of the respondent is not sufficient and he requires more accommodation. The respondent-landlord who gave evidence as P.W 2. and his son, examined as P.W.I are both Advocates. The case of the respondent also is that he and his sons are having their office in Tulja Bhavan. which is an endowed property and an order of eviden on is passed against them and therefore they also require the premises in question to have their office which requires an office room, a clerk room and a consulting room and also to accommodate their very big library, which is in 25 almyrahs. At present though P.W I is residing in another house bearing No 3-4-780 belonging to the brother of the respondent, it is found on evidence that the respondent and P.W.I are joint and they are having common mess and living together and it is only for want of accommodation P.W 1 is residing in another house as mentioned above to which they are not entitled to. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found in favour of the respondent-landlord that he requires the premises in the occupation of the petitioner bonafide for his personal occupation. So far as the personal requirement of the premises by the landlord is concerned, it Is a finding given by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority after considering the entire evidence on record and proper appreciation of it. Having gone through the papers on record, I do not find any grounds to come to a different conclusion on the question of bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for his persona! occupation.
(2.) There are several other grounds on which the tenant contested the eviction petition. According to him, the present eviction petition is not maintainable as an earlier eviction petition in R.C. No 23 of 1963 which was later re-numbered as R.C No. 89 of 1966 filed by the respondent on the same ground was dismissed as withdrawn by him and as provided under Order 23 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure that petition having been withdrawn without the permission of the Rent Controller with liberty to file another petition the present petition is barred. This objection found favour with the Rent Controller and accordingly he dismissed the eviction petition. In the appeal filed by the respondent, the Appellate Authority did not agree with this finding of the Rent Controller and accordlngly setting aside it allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the petitior. The other objections raised by the petitioner are The two premises bearing municipal Nos. 3-4-778 and 3 4-779 which are respectively in occupation of himself as tenant and the respondent are different buildings and under the provisions of the Act even for bona fide requirement of additional accommodation the respondent cannot require more than one building and if he wants the premises in the occupation of the petitioner, he can have it only by surrendering the premises In his occupation. The petitioner is working as Asaldari Patwari, Mali Patel and "Police Patel of Bacharam and Abalapur in Andole Taluk, Medak District and as provided under section 10 (4) of the Act he cannot be evicted It is provided under section 10 (4) of the Act that no order of eviction shall be passed against any tenant who is engage in any employment or class of employment notified by the Goverrment as an essential service unless the landlord himself Is engaged in any employment or class of employment which has b?en so notified. It Is found that the petitioner is not residing in those villages and he is not discharging those functions. He appointed a Gumasta and his Gumasta is discharging the functions attached to those offices. The petitioner aiso has not produced any material to show that his employment as Asaldarl Patwari, Mall Patel and Police Patel is a class of employment notified by the Government as essential service for the purposes of the Act. Under these circumstances, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion shat the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the provision contained in section 10(4) of the Act. There is nothing wrong in this finding Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the two premises are part of the same building and even assuming that they are to be treated as two separate buildings, as per the decision in K. Nagappa vs. T.D. Krishnasa A.I.R. 1972 A.P. P 243 a landlord is also entltled to evict a tenant occupying a different build ng if it is required for additional accommodation though he is already occupying a building of his own.
(3.) Sri H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted his arguments on the following contentions :