D KRISHNA RAO Vs. K V NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act'). The petitioners who are brothers filed eviction petition R.C.No. 307/80 under Section 10(3)(a) of the Act against the respondents who are father and daughter seeking eviction in respect of the ground floor of the premises bearing No.7-2-612, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. The tenants are running Pathalogical laboratory in the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The ground of eviction is that the 2nd petitioner intends to start business of his own in hardware, paint and engineering goods which is the family business and that he has no other premises of his own except this premises. The tenants have filed counter that the need is not bona fide, that the 2nd petitioner has no proper training or where-withal for commencing the business and that the eviction petition is filed only to pressurise the tenants to enhance the rent. The Rent Controller allowed the petition while the Addl. Chief Judge dismissed the petition holding that it was filed with the oblique motive of getting higher rent, that the locality is not suitable for hardware business and that the petitioner has not established his financial capacity to start the business. Against this order, the landlords preferred this revision contending that the order of the appellate Court reversing the Rent Controller's order is illegal.

(2.) Pending the C.R.P., the tenants filed C.M.P.No. 16849/95 on 15-11-1995 alleging that after the judgment of the appellate Court, the 1st to 4th floors of the building bearing the same Municipal number as that of ground floor fell vacant and the petitioner instead of occupying one of the floors, let out the same to some others and hence he cannot ask for eviction in view of the bar in Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It is further alleged that the landlords have admitted in RC 54/95 that the 1st to 4th floors are non-residential premises. The tenants request this Court to take these subsequent events into consideration and dismiss the C.R.P. To this, the landlords filed counter admitting that the 1st the 4th floors fell vacant and were let out subsequently, but they are not convenient for the purpose of hardware business and engineering goods. The landlord filed C.M.P. 1634/96 for receiving certain municipal tax receipts in support of his plea that 1st to 4th floors were given separate numbers and were assessed to tax separately. He states in his affidavit that while the ground floor is non- residential, the remaining 1st to 4th floors were intended for residential purpose. To this, the tenant has filed reply on 5-2-1996 contending that additional documents cannot be filed in the CRP filed under Section 22 of the Act and denied the allegation that the upper floors are intended for residential purpose. It is further averred that there is no kitchen on any of the floors, that the landlord has not filed any material to establish the true character of the upper floors and that in any event the 1st and 2nd floors are let out for non- residential purpose. In view of the subsequent developments C.M.Ps. 16849 of 1995 and 1634 of 1996 are ordered.

(3.) The following questions fall for consideration: