VANKAYALA SIVAIAH Vs. DUPAGUNTLA NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i), (b) (iii) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) for short, "the Act", on the ground that the respondent requires the premises bona fide for personal occupation to carry on his business as anAgent of the Life Insurance Corporation and as a partner in a lorry business. The Rent Controller dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate authority had allowed the appeal and ordered ejectment. Thus the revision.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that there is no bona fides on the part af the respondent. He filed this application immediately after three months after purchase, only to see that it is let out for a higher rent The petitioner has been carrying on the business for a long time and it would cause great hardship to him in the event of his ejectment. During the course of the evidence, it was emanated that the respondent filed R C. No. 97/1977 against one Apparao, another tenant, and ejectment was ordered and possession was available to him The evidence in that regard was admitted in Exs. B-1 and B-2. After the decree of ejectment, it is also admitted that the said Apparao was evicted from the building and it was let out to one Vijaya Cut Pieces on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is also admitted that the application for eviction of Apparao was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement, It is further admitted that in Redla Bazaar, there is a godown bearing No. 19-11-66 and that godown was let out in 1977. The trial Court found that the requirement is not bona fide on more than one ground viz., that the respondent having obtained possession of the premises in RC. No, 97/77 for personal occupation, he did not occupy the same; on the other hand, he let it out to Vijaya Cut Pieces. It is also stated that the godown was let out for rent during the pendency of the proceedings. The Life Insurance business does not require any particular premises to carry on that business. Fot the lorry business, it was admitted that the landlord of the premises in which the lorry business was being run, did not issue any notice of ejectment and there is no threat of dispossession. The appellate Court in reversing the findings, did not consider any of the reasons given by the Controller who allowed the application, on the ground that there is no satisfactory evidence that the godown is not sufficient for baing used as a business and it is also found that the petitioner is having other shops and he too in his turn let out the shops for the other tenants on rent. On these grounds, it is held that the respondent has made out a case for personal occupation.

(3.) Sri P. L. N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the whole approach of the Court below is vitiated by error of jurisdiction and the correct approach to be adopted has been adumbrated by the Supreme Court in Gautom Chand Jain Vs. Sushila Kumari (1) AIR 1986 SC 513 and M. M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lai Sharma & Others (2)AIR 1981 SC 1113.He also relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Subhadramma vs Sankaramma(3) 1985(3) APLJ 1 7 (SN) holding that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Quasim's case (2), the requirement of the landlord is not an absolute and unrestricted choice and it has to be moulded at tune to the circumstances and the decision of this Court in Pathan Khan Vs. Syed Pasha (4) 1975 (2) APLJ 318, is no longer a good law in the light of the decision in Quasim's case (2) supra. Sri A. Hanu- mantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the relative hardship is for the res- pondent; the petitioner is having other shops as is found by the appellate authority. The petitioner has to prove that the building available for occupation of the respondent is more suitable than the building for which ejectment is sought for; the business of insurance requires a large establishment; the godown is not suitable to run the businses and the premises where the lorry business in which the respondent is a partner, there need not be any threat from the landlord of that premises to evict the partnership firm carrying on the lorry business. Therefore, these questions are in the domain of the appreciation of evidence and it does not warrant interference in a revision under Sec. 22 of the Act.