V CHANDRA KUMARI Vs. A NARASLMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is landlady and native of Chagallu filed eviction petition on 6-9-1978 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the Mulgi in Rajahmundry on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller held that there was no default in payment of rents but allowed the eviction petition upholding the landlady's contention about the bona fide requirement. Duringhcaringof the appeal preferred by the tenant, learned counsel for the landlady was not present and the appeal was allowed ex parte. Though the question of wilful default was not subject matter of appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, gave finding in favour of the tenant on this issue also. Aggrieved by this, the landlady filed revision in this Court which was allowed on 8-8-1986 by this Court and the plea of the petitioner for personal occupation was upheld. The landlady did not canvass the finding of the two Courts below regarding wilful default. On appeal by the tenant, the Supreme Court remanded the matter with the following observation:

(2.) Pursuant to the remand, the matter has come up for hearing. Mr.M.S.K. Sastry learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vital factors referred to by the Supreme Court may be:

(3.) In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner and her husband who are residing at Chagallu have no convenient occupation at Chagallu and arc put to serious hardship in the matter of making their living and hence with a view to make a living by starting business in Aluminiumware they want to shift to Rajahmundry where the parents of the petitioner are residing. In the counter, it is stated by the tenant that the father of the petitioner, who earlier let out the premises to him, asked him in 1971 to attorn to the petitioner to whom he has given the property as Pasupukumkuma. He got issued lawyer's notice Ex.B-1, in April, 1977 demanding the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that he requires the premises for the occupation of his elder son who wants to carry on Kirana business. To that, the tenant gave reply denying his title and alleging that the claim of personal occupation is not bona fide but is made only with oblique motive of obtaining enhancement of rent. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner's husband is having properties and is carrying on business in West Godavari District, that he has no intention to start business or shift residence to Rajahmundry and that this petition is filed only as the earlier attempt of the petitioner's father for eviction has failed. Lastly, it is stated that as he has been running hair cutting saloon at the premises for the past so many years, he would be put to hardship if he has to vacate the premises.