V VEERCRAGHAVULU Vs. GODAVARI METRO! ROLLING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the unsuccessful landlord against the order dated 9-10-1991 of the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (Subordinate Judge), Rajahmundry rejecting his appeal R.C.A. No.37 of 1989 and confirming the order dated 26-10-1989 of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Rajahmundry dismissing the eviction petition R.C.C. No.72 of 1983 for evicting the respondent herein who is his tenant.

(2.) The respondent is a partnership firm. It has been the tenant of the petition schedule building belonging to the petitioner herein, for a number of years.The petition schedule building is in Rajahmundry town. The respondent has been using the same for storing Copper, Brass, Zinc etc. materials.

(3.) The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent under Section 10(3)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the petition schedule building. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally doing business in cut pieces cloth and that some years after the petition schedule building was let out to the respondent, he started wholesale cloth business and that he requires a big godown to keep the cloth bales he receives for the wholesale business and that he requires the said building to keep his stocks because he has noother place available for that purpose. It is his case that inspite of several requests made by him the respondent did not vacate the petition schedule building. Under the circumstances, he gave a registered notice dated 12-10-1982 to the respondent requesting him to vacate the same and deliver it to him; the respondent refused in a reply dated 23-2-1983. It was under those circumstances that the petitioner filed the eviction petition. In the eviction petition the petitioner also alleges that the respondent owns several other buildings in Rajahmundry which he let out for higher rents and that no inconvenience would be caused to him as it has got several buildings to use as godown. The petitioner also alleges that the respondent has not been keeping the petition schedule building in a proper condition and that he was causing nuisance and disturbance and commiting acts of waste resulting in deterioration of the value of the building.