G JAGDESWAR REDDY Vs. K DHARMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Rent Act, for brevity), the landlord is the petitioner. He is Medical Doctor by profession. He is the owner of non-residential premises bearing Door No.3-5-21/1 to 5 situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad - a prime commercial area (hereafter called, the schedule premises). A portion of the same in the first floor was let out to the respondent (tenant), who is Dental Surgeon specializing in Orthodontia (correction of teeth). The landlord filed R.C.No. 146 of 1998 before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the tenant for personal occupation. He gave two reasons for the same: that the landlord's father is suffering from old age problems and requires medical attendance regularly, and that he wants to shift practice from his native place to Hyderabad, as he has had been receiving threatening calls from extremists for over three years. The tenant opposed the petition denying the petition allegations and further alleged that the landlord has another suitable premises available in the area, that there was no threat from extremists and that the father of the landlord, who developed dislike, is bent upon evicting the tenant.

(2.) Learned Rent Controller after considering evidence, believed landlord and ordered eviction, by order, dated 20-10-2000. In appeal by the tenant, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate authority), Hyderabad, however, allowed the appeal dismissing petition for eviction on the holding that the landlord failed to mention in the registered notice, Ex.P.1, about the threat from naxalites (extremists).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the landlord - petitioner herein; contends that the finding of the appellate authority is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Having agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord wanted to shift his practice to Hyderabad, on surmise the appellate authority came to conclusion that there was no need to shift to Hyderabad when the landlord was getting handsome income in the village. He nextly submits that the situation in naxalite infested areas including Nizamabad District, is so fearsome, that no sane person would lodge a complaint to the police about the threats of naxalites and mere non-lodging of a complaint with the police cannot render evidence of the landlord unbelievable. He relied on the decision of this Court in Vatcha Chandra Kumari v. Atava Narasimha Rao, 1997 (4) ALD 593.