BAHETI TRADING CO LTD Vs. YASIIODA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arising under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 is at the instance of the tenant. Tha petitioner is the tanant. The husband of the land lady let out the ground floor bearing No. 5-2-953 situated at Osmangunj, Hyderabad to the tenant about 20 years prior to the filing of eviction petition. The land-lady is residing with her family members in the first floor and the tenant is carrying on business in the ground floor. The monthly rent stipulated is Rs. 300/- per month. The eviction petition is filed on two grounds, namely, wilful default in payment of rent and for bonafide requirement. In the eviction petition it is stated that the petitioner and her children 2,6 and 8 petitioners are residing in the first floor and the petitioners 2 and 6 are without any avocation and they intend to carry on the business of food grains and they do not own any other premises excepting the ground floor and the tenant did not respond to the request for vacating the premises notice was issued and ultimately eviction petition is filed.

(2.) The plea of the respondent is that there is no wilful default and it is not necessary to set put the details of this plea in this eviction petition as the eviction concerning the wilful default is the subject matter of C R P No 2511/84. The averement that the petitioners 2 and 6 are without any occupation is denied and it is stated that they are already in business and employment. It is also stated that the petitioners are already occupying the first floor for residential purpose and the demand of the suit premises, namely, ground floor of the same building by way of additional accommodation will cause unnecessary hardship to the tenant, who is there since more than 20 years. The issues considered by the court below are : 1. Whether the respondent is in wilful default in payment of rent? 2. Whether the eviction petitioners bonafide required the suit premises ? 3. If so, whether it comes under Sec. 10(3) (a) (iii) (b) or Sec. 10(3) (c) of Act 15 of 1960 ? 4. If it is the latter, whether the hardship to the respondent out weights the advantage to the eviction petitioners, of eviction is ordered ?

(3.) Both the courts held that the requirement of suit premises for the use of the petitioners 2 and 6 is bona- fide. It is further held that Sec. 10(3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act is applicable as the requirement is different namely nonresidential purpose and the land-lady and the family members are using the first floor for residential purpose even assuming that both the floors constitute the same building.