BOGGAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Vs. BATCHU VENKATA RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2003 passed in R.C.A.No.15 of 2000 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority - cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. The eviction petition in R.C.C.No.65 of 1.994 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') for additional accommodation of portion of the petition schedule premises in occupation iof the tenant was dismissed by order dated 03.06.2000. Aggrieved by the same the landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 2000 and the appellate Court by judgment dated 18.03.2003 allowed the appeal ordering eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the said judgment: the tenant filed this revision petition and during the pendency of this petition the tenant died and his legal representatives i.e. wife and two sons were brought on record. It is the case of the first landlord that the second landlord is the son of the first landlord and the first petitioner is the owner of the shop in occupation of the tenant, which is part of the house bearing No.33-1-32, Main Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District. It is his further case that the petition schedule property is an old shop room which a temporary structure. It is stated that there was a family partition and as per the partition the entire house was divided into two shares out of which one share; fell to the first petitioner's father and mother to the first landlord. The father of the first landlord bequeathed his half share in flavour of the first landlord and his wife. The father of the first landlord sold away the portion of his share to third parties. The front door or simhadwaram was allotted to the share of the wife of the first landlord and that the passage was especially intended to her share. The landlords have sold the front portion facing the road and retained the back portion for their personal residence, which is an access from north-eastern side through sandhu of 7 feet width but originally a room was constructed of 4 feet width x 18'.9" length, which was leased out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.380/-. To go to the backside portion of the landlords' residence, the landlords have necessarily go through the northern sandhu, which is only 3 feet width because of the room constructed and leased out to the tenant. It is stared that the southern passage is specially intended for the first landlord's wife only and the landlords have no property on southern side and they have no right to use that passage i.e. sandhu. The wife of the first landlord wanted to dispose her share of the property. There is no other passage for the landlords to go through freely. The present passage is very narrow lane and it is difficult for the landlords to move freely. It is not possible to take cycle or scooter or any big article into the house of the petitioners. The first landlord is an aged person and had a paralytic stroke three years back and got defective vision in view of the eye operation. Unless the passage is free and wide in width, it is difficult for the first landlord to go through freely. The petitioners wanted the petition schedule shop property for their bonafide requirement for their personal use only to demolish the same to widen the passage for the better use of the passage. By demolishing the petition schedule property the passage will become 7 feet otherwise it is very difficult to people to take scooters and cycles inside, as there is an open drain with a width of one foot on the northern side. The first landlord requested the tenant to vacate the petition schedule shop but the tenant refused to vacate the same. Counter has been filed by the tenant disputing all the allegations and stated that on the existing 3 feet passage there is simhadwaram and also there is another passage towards the extreme south in respect of the property belonging to the first landlord and his wife. Therefore, there are three passages and there are no bonafides on the part of the landlords in seeking his eviction on the ground of additional accommodation for the purpose of widening of'the existing passage. It is the case of the landlords that there is no malafide intention in seeking eviction of the tenant as that they intend to demolish the existing structures in occupation of the tenant for making use of the said area as passage alone.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that the learned Rent Controller rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there are no bonafides on the part of the landlords in seeking his eviction. It is further stated that admittedly as on the date of filing of the eviction petition there are two passages i.e. simhadwaram and two feet passage and admittedly the first landlord and his wife jointly sold the property that fell to them including simhadwaram under Ex.A6 dated 13.08.1999 whereas the eviction petition hus been filed on 28.12.1994 and therefore, there was no cause of action giving rise to filing of eviction petition for the purpose of additional accommodation as already they were having siimhadwaram for their ingress and egress to go to their property. The subsequent sale of simhadwaram will not entitle the landlords for seeking eviction of the tenants. It is further stated that in the eviction petition it is stated that the simhadwaram passage has specifically fell to the share of the wife of but the same has not been stated in the sale deed, which goes to show that the said property sold including the simhadwnram has fallen to the share of both the first landlord and his wife and therefore, it cannot be said that the first landlord was not having any share in the simhadwaram. I have perused Ex.A6. No doubt, Ex.A6 goes to show that in the said property half of the property fell to the share of the first landlord and the remaining half fell to the share of the second landlord but it is not specifically stated that the simhadwaram area has fallen to the share of the wife of the first landlord. Therefore, it cannot be said that simhadwaram area has fallen to the share of the wife of the first landlord.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the landlords are entitled to seek the non-residential portion in occupation of the tenants as additional accommodation for residential purpose under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act if the landlord is in occupation of only a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential and if the tenant is in occupation of any portion of the remaining part of the building and if the landlord requires the said portion in occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, it is open for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant.