SAMAD Vs. RAMULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench by Muktadar, J. in view of (the seeming conflict between two decisions of this Court. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent-landlady applied for eviction of the premises concerned herein, a shop, on the ground that she requires it for starting a business in fancy goods with the assistance of her brother's son. She stated that this is the only non-residential building owned by her within the Municipal Limits of Kurnool. She stated that even though she requested the tenant to vacate the building on several occasions, hs has been postponing the same on one or the other pretext. A notice dated 6-4-1973 was issued to the tenant to which he replied with fatse allegations.

(2.) The tenant opposed the eviction petition contending that the alleged need of the landlady is imaginary and untrue. He submitted that the landlady is an old woman and that it is impossible for her to do business. He stated that he and before him his father have been carrying.on business in the said shop for more than two decades and thai neither the landlady nor her husband had ever asked them to vacate the premises for starting a business of their own. He submitted that this is only a ruse for collecting more rent.

(3.) Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case, on a consideration of which the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlady has failed to establish her bonafide need and accordingly dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, however, the appellate court took a contrary view. The appellate Court held the evidence on record does establish that the landlady requires the premises for the purpose urged by her and that said need is bonafide. The appellate Court inter-alia relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mangilal Rathi vs. Kishan Rao, 1972 (2) ALT 1271972 (2) APLJ 8 wherein it was held that for establishing the bona fide requirement it is not necessary for the landlord to prove that he has made all the necessary arrangements, since it was not possible for him to make the preparations like obtaining licence or placing orders for the supply of goods until he procures the possession ofthe premises. The appeal was accordingly allowed and eviction ordered.