VENKATA RAMA ALLUMINIUM CO Vs. B NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the tenants questioning the orders of the appellate authority under Rent Control Act (Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry) dated 27-11-1995, by which R.C.A. 11/94 filed by the Landlady was allowed thereby setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C.C. 71/81 dated 7-7-1994 and directing the eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of bona fide requirement of the demised building for her residential purpose.

(2.) The present respondent and her husband filed R.C.C.71/81 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-Cum-Rent Controller, Rajahmundry seeking eviction of the present petitioners from the demised premises which consists of residential building as well as non-residential building, on the ground of bonafide requirement for residential purpose of their family, contending that they had fostered one Ramakrishna, who is the son of the brother of the husband of the present respondent and one Subbulakshmi who is the niece of the respondent, and they have been living along with the respondent and her husband since many years; that they are all residing as a single family in one house which belongs to the respondent and her husband; that the children of the above said foster son and daughter are since married and children also were born to them and they are grown up; that there are now number of persons in their family residing in the same house which they are now occupying; that the accommodation in the said house is not sufficient for all the family members; that they, therefore, require the demised building which was leased out to the petitioners herein for providing residential accommodation to the foster son and daughter and their children and grand children and that, therefore, the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the demised premises.

(3.) The first petitioner herein is a firm of which petitioners 2 to 5 are partners and they contested the petition before the Rent Controller, contending that the alleged requirement of the demised premises for residential purpose by the respondent is not bona fide; that the requirement of the foster son and daughter and their children cannot be considered as the requirement of the respondent; that the petition is filed for eviction only to seek enhancement of rent; that the demised premises consist of two separate portions, one leased out for residential purpose and the other for non-residential purpose; that the lease thus granted in their favour by the respondent is a composite lease and as such She petition filed for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act seeking both the buildings for residential purpose is not maintainable, and that the petition may, therefore, be dismissed. The petitioners herein further alleged before the Rent Controller that the husband of the respondent herein, who was the first petitioner in the rent control petition, is not the owner of the premises and they are denying his title and as such, the petition was not maintainable. In view of such contention raised by the petitioners regarding the title, it was sought to be contended by the respondent and her husband before the Rent Controller that the petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of denial of title of the husband of the respondent herein.