AMTUAL HAFEEZ Vs. D MOHAMMED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Sec.22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) by the tenant who lost in both the Courts below. The petitioner is a tenant of residential premises at Guntakal from 8-9-1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/-. The respondent filed eviction petition under Secs.1(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement for own occupation respectively. Both the Courts rejected the plea of wilful default but upheld the plea of bonafide requirement viz., that thepremises is required by the landlord's son for starting carpet business at Guntakal. Against the order of the appellate Court, the tenant filed this revision. Pending revision, the landlord died and his legal representatives were impleaded on 2-2-1996 in C.M.P. 18075/95.

(2.) The only contention urged by Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned Cousel for the petitioners is that as the premises is residential building, the landlord cannot seek eviction on the ground that he requires it for non-residential purpose. She contends that eviction from residential premises can be sought for only for the purpose of residential occupation under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, while eviction from non-residential premises can be sought only for the purpose of business under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii). On the other hand, Mr. K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the word 'own occupation' occurring in Sec.10(3)(a)(i) is not restricted to residential occupation only but includes such occupation as the premises is capable of admitting. He further submits that this question is academic since ground for eviction is that the respondent's son wants to shift from Adoni to Guntakal to do business there which includes residing at Guntakal.

(3.) To appreciate the rival contentions, the essential facts and the relevant provisions of the law may be noticed. In the petition, the landlord stated that he got carpet business in Adoni which he wants to shift to Guntakal entrusting it to his bachelor son and make him reside permanently at Guntakal. He stated that the premises is fit for storage of carpet and also for residence. In the counter, it is stated that the premises is residential one and not suitable for business. The landlord while giving evidence as P.W.1 stated that the house consists of 2 halls, 2 rooms, one kitchen and bathroom and one latrine besides verandah and that 15 to 20 people can reside in the house. As rightly contended by Mr. Somakonda Reddy, the landlord's intention to shift the business to Guntakal and put his son in charge of it, implies that the son wants to reside in the premises besides carrying on business. In the counter, the stand of the tenant was that as the premises is not situated on the main road, it is not useful for business. As this was not in issue, the evidence is evidently silent on this aspect. Thus there is no difficulty in holding that the landlord is entitled to claim eviction for personal residential occupation under Sec.10(3)(a)(i).