RAMA MOHANA RAO V Vs. V PARAMESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord is the revision petitioner herein. His petition filed under Section 10 (2) (i) and Section 10 (3)(a) (iii) (a) & (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), in R.C.C.No. 26/1985 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Eluru, by Order dated 5-3-1992. However, on an appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Eluru) by Order dated 25-7-1994 in C.M.A.No. 6/1992, reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. Hence, the revision.

(2.) Brief facts:- The revision petitioner's father let out the petition schedule shop to the tenant about 30 years back and after the demise of his father, the revision petitioner became owner of the shop. The respondent is carrying on brass and steelware business in the petition schedule shop, and he has been continuing the said business as on the date of filing the petition for eviction by the landlord. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement. It is the contention of the petitioner-landlord that some time prior to the filing of the petition he used to do business in electrical goods in one of the shops in ground floor situated towards the north of the shop which is let out to the respondent. It is not out of place to mention here that apart from the petition schedule shop, there are three more shops in the ground floor which belong to the petitioner. He let out all the three shops. While so, the petitioner started doing contract works in electrical wiring etc., and so he stopped doing business in electrical goods in the said shop room situate in the ground floor. Subsequently, he let out that shop room also to some other tenant. Later, the petitioner occupied one small room in the upstair portion of the building 'for storing the electrical goods for purpose of his contract business and also for occasionally retail sales.' While things stood thus, the petitioner entertained an idea of starting wholesale and retail business in electrical goods by shifting into the petition schedule shop. Having failed in his efforts to get the respondent vacated from the shop, the petitioner ultimately filed the petition for eviction.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, after an elaborate enquiry and after hearing arguments, held on the issue of wilful default that there is no wilful default on the part of the respondent in payment of rents and thus negatived the first contention. He, however, upheld the second contention of the petitioner- landlord and accordingly allowed the petition. The Appellate Authority, on the question of wilful default, observed that since there was no cross-appeal by the landlord, the contention with regard to wilful default need not be answered in the appeal filed by the tenant. He, therefore, went on to decide the second point i.e., bona fide requirement and ultimately held against the landlord.