BABURAO C Vs. R KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the Judgment Passed in R.A.No.94/91 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The landlord is the petitioner herein. He had filed the Rent Case against the tenant on 2 grounds:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord has made out a case for bom fide requirement. The lower Court erred in holding that the petitioner did not state as to the nature of business he wants to start and that the landlord has not taken licence to start the business. It is also held that landlord has no funds to invest in the business. Therefore, there was no bow fide requirement for the landlord. The petitioner herein admittedly is a youngman, belongs to business community and is unemployed. This is the only mulgi available to him and therefore, to eke-out his livelihood, he bona fidely requires this premises. Not only mat, subsequently he got money and he is ready to invest in the business. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision in B. Eswaramma vs. A. Appu Rao wherein it was held that: Non-mention of the nature of business and other particulars in the petition itself is not a ground for dismissing the petition. He also relied upon a decision in K.N. Suryanarayana Setty vs. K. Sattarkhan & others- wherein it was held that:

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner herein has non sufficient finance to start his business. He and his mother have invested Rs.20,000/-in the form of F.D.R. instate Bank of Hyderabad. The maturity date of that FDR is 30-12-1995. Not only that, he has taken chit for the value of Rs.51,000/-. He can draw the amount at any time and invest in the business. The learned Counsel submitted that these subsequent events can also be taken into consideration to mould relief suitably. In support of his contention he relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram.