BIBIJAN Vs. CHINTAKRIDI NARASIMHAM AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition arising out of R.C.A.No. 26/1991 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dated 18-1-1993 holding that the revision petitioners, who are owners of 30/72 share, are not entitled to evict the respondent/tenant who subsequently purchased 42/72 share in the demised premises till partition is effected though they are able to establish their bonafide requirement of the premises.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition in brief are: That the demised premises originally belonged to Shaik Mohiuddin Khan Saheb. Revision Petitioner No.l is his wife and revision petitioners 2 to 4 are their daughters. The original landlord also left behind him two sons. On his death the demised premises was inherited by his wife, three daughters and two sons. His wife and daughters, who are revision petitioners herein, became entitled to 30/72 share in that property while the remaining 42/72 fell to the share of his sons. The premises was let out to the respondent/tenant firm during the life time of Shaik Mohiuddin Khan Saheb and the tenancy continued subsequent to his death. While so, one Chintakrindi Subba Rao, who is father of the managing partner of the firm, purchased 42/72 share from the owners (sic. sons) of the original owner while the revision petitioners herein who are jointly entitled to 30/72 share sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant on two grounds, viz., (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bona fide requirement. The respondent/tenant resisted the petition mainly on the ground that no partition was effected among the sharers and that without separating the share of the revision petitioners, the petition is not maintainable for eviction to an extent of 30/72 share. He has, however, specifically denied both the grounds set up by them for the eviction of the tenant. On the first ground it is stated that one Shaik Abdulla Saheb used to collect the rents as the petitioners are living at various places, but they failed to receive the rent since September, 1985 and hence the respondent filed RCC.No. 98/1995 for permission to deposit the rent and the same was allowed. On the second ground it is averred that a registered notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners alleging that the premises was required for joint business, but it is only a myth and concocted for the purpose of the eviction petition. It is asserted that the requirement of the petitioners is not bona fide.

(3.) The parties went to trial with the above pleadings. Revision petitioner No. 4 is examined as P.W. 1 and her nephew and son of revision petitioner No. 2 is examined as P.W. 2. The requirement of the premises for starting a watch shop is projected through him. Petitioner No. 3 is examined as P.W. 3. In rebuttal, the managing partner of the tenant-firm is examined as R.W. 1. Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked on behalf of the revision petitioners and Exs.B-1 to B-3 for the respondent / tenant. The learned Rent Controller assessed the above oral and documentary evidence and held that the revision petitioners have miserably failed to establish both the grounds and accordingly the eviction petition has been dismissed. The revision petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, who affirmed the finding on the first ground viz., wilful default and reversed the finding on the second ground and held that the requirement of the petitioners is bona fide. However, the appeal was not allowed on the ground that no partition was effected between the parties and hence, the respondent/tenant is not liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by the above order, the landladies filed this revision petition.