NARAYANAM VENKATA CHALAMAJI Vs. BAIRUNDAN AMARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the same landlord namely Narayanam Venkata Chalamaji (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") against his three tenants. The Rent Control Cases filed by the landlord in R.C.C.Nos.34, 35 and 36 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagarm on same and similar grounds, seeking eviction of different tenants in occupation of three mulgies of the building bearing No.8-1-46, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(c), 10(2)(v), 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act for the willful default, the tenants secured alternative accommodation and bonafide requirement of the landlord to commence the business were allowed by separate orders dated 27-7-2000 only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his personal use and occupation. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Rent Controller, the tenants filed Rent Control Appeals, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge- cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram in R.C.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2000 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority set-aside the orders of the Rent Controller, while allowing the appeals and dismissed the eviction petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, these three CiviJ Revision Petitions have been filed by the landlord. As the landlord is one and the same and though the three tenants are different persons who are in occupation of similar portions of the schedule premises in question and the grounds seeking eviction are also similar, the facts in one case i.e., R.C.C.No.34 of 1996 are suffice to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties.

(2.) It is the case of the landlord that he is the absolute owner of the building bearing No.8-1-46, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram and petition schedule shop is let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month and the tenant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and he committed willful default of payment of rents. The landlord has no other non-residential building in Vizianagaram except the petition schedule building. The landlord is carrying on business in lodging namely Geetha Lodge in part of the building. The landlord requires the building for his personal use and occupation for the use of his son Seetharamayya Setty for establishing Computer Training Centre and also for doing business in Computers and Spare Parts. The portion occupied by the tenants is suitable for doing the said business and the landlord required the said three shop rooms. The landlord demanded the tenants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the shop rooms, but they did not vacate the premises. It is further alleged that the landlord is doing business of lodging in a portion and the said portion is not suitable for establishing a computer and training center and computer shop etc., therefore, the landlord requires the schedule premises for additional accommodation for the purpose of doing business in computer training center and computer sales counter and therefore, the landlord is entitled for possession of the premises. It is further alleged that the tenants shifted their business from the shops and doing business in some other place and as the tenants secured alternative accommodation and actually doing business there, therefore they have been ceased to occupy and carry on the business in the schedule premises for more than a period of four months, they are not entitled to continue in the schedule premises. Therefore, they are liable to be evicted from the schedule premises. It is further alleged that the tenants have sub let part of the portion leased out to them and therefore, they are liable to be evicted on the ground of sub letting also. It is further stated that the tenants are having their own buildings and they leased out the same to the tenants on higher rent and as they have got alternative accommodation, they are liable to be evicted.

(3.) The tenants filed a counter before the Rent Controller. The title of the landlord is not disputed. The relationship of the landlord - tenant and the monthly rent payable is also not in dispute. It is stated that the tenants are not the defaulters and they never committed default in payment of rents. It is stated that the landlord collected rents even after receiving the notice and they have been regularly paying rents and there was no default, much less willful default. It is stated that the landlord is not at all required the said building for his personal use and occupation for establishing computer training center of his son and also for the business in computers. The landlord does not bonafidely require the said building for his personal use and occupation for establishing the computer training center for his son and for business in computers. Eviction proceedings have been initiated only to enhance the rents. In fact, the landlord does not require the premises for commencement of business in computer training and computer sales. It is further stated that the landlord is doing business in lodging and the contention that the portion of building is not suitable for establishing computer training center and computer shop etc., and the landlord requires the petition schedule building for additional accommodation for the purpose of doing business in computer training center and computer sales counter is denied. It is stated that the two pleadings taken by the landlord are counter to each other as in one breath, the landlord says that he requires the petition schedule building as additional accommodation, while in other breath, he says that he requiires the same for establishing computer training center and computer sale counter. The computer training centre or computer sale counter can be established in the premises, where the landlord is carrying on business in lodging, which is in the up-stair. portion of the petition schedule building and other leased out premises in the same building. It is stated that if the tenants are vacated from the building, it would cause more hardship and they will be at more disadvantageous position and the relative hardship is more to the tenants than the requirement of the said premises for the personal occupation of the landlord. It is stated that the tenants never shifted their business and they have not secured any alternative accommodation. They have not sub let any of the portion leased out: to them and they have been carrying on their business in the same leased out portions. Therefore, the tenants are not ceased to occupy the premises and the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction on any of the grounds.