P VEERASWAMY Vs. G S PRAKASARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review application is filed seeking to review an order in C.R.P.No.426 of 1993 passed by my learned brother Dr. Maithli sharan, since transferred, and hence the same is posted before me.

(2.) The respondent-landlord who is a practising Advocate filed this revision under Section 10 (3)(a)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the ground that he requires additional accommodation, as he was using the front room of his residence for office purpose as well as for his drawing room, as he was having a clerk, the present room is insufficient. The demised premises viz., the room was let out to the petitioner for carrying on a barber shop since more than 10 years. The said room is convenient for expansion of his office as there is a door way in between this room and the office room. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondent was having only two rooms and his four daughters are living with him. So, he is facing with the difficulty to put up in those two rooms with all his four daughters in addition to his office. All the daughters are grown up and they are studying in Colleges. The respondent also stated in his evidence that he was using the office room both as a drawing room and also as bed room. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller found that there is genuine and bona fide requirement on the part of the respondent, and accordingly allowed the petition

(3.) On appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge, however held that in view of the report of the Commissioner marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 as additional evidence the residential portion of the respondent-landlord consists of three rooms and a hall and the hall is being used as office room in which the Commissioner found Books-rack; two cots; one Godrej Almyrah; small table with books; Drawer with racks; Round table; Sofa set etc., As the respondent was having three rooms, the appellate Court found that the landlord is having sufficient accommodation in view of Exs.C-1 and C-2, and accordingly allowed the appeal. When the landlord carried the matter in revision to this Court, my learned brother Dr. Maithli Sharan, allowed the revision observing that the lower appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the Commissioner himself has shown in his plan that one of the rooms was converted into two rooms; otherwise he was only in possession of two rooms; apart from the drawing-cum office room. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the respondent has four grown up daughters living with him. Although at the time when the premises was let out in 1974 or 1976 his daughters were young and hence accommodation was sufficient, but now since they are grown up and college going, the accommodation has become insufficient, and therefore, the need of the landlord is bona fide. Accordingly he allowed the revision and directed eviction granting six months time.