KUMAR EMBROIDERY WORKS Vs. P V KASI VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.NO. 3002 of 1993 is filed by the tenant whereas C.R.P.No. 3978/1994 is filed by the landlord having been aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in R.C.A.No. 13 of 1992.

(2.) The landlord filed R.C.No. 99/1987 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rentals and bona fide requirement. Originally, the father of the landlord late P.V. Chalapathi Rao let out the petition schedule first floor of the building to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 200/- with a condition that the rent should be paid on first of every month. While so, in the family partition, the petition schedule premises and the ground floor of the building fell to the share of the landlord. The tenant attorned to the landlord on the same terms and conditions. The landlord, after succeeding to the property, requested the tenant to vacate the leasehold premises as he was requiring the same for his personal occupation, i.e., both for residential accommodation and for expansion of his business which he was carrying on in the ground floor. Even though the tenant promised to vacate the premises, he failed to vacate the same. Then the landlord issued a notice dated 29-1-1981 and thereafter filed O.S.No. 469/1981 before the Principal District Munsif's Court, Visakhapatnam, for eviction of the tenant, which was decreed. The relief for recovery of arrears was, however rejected. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in the said suit, the tenant carried the matter in appeal by filing A.S.No. 105/1983, which was dismissed. The tenant, therefore, filed S.A.No. 260/1985 and this Court allowed the same with an observation that the petitioner-landlord can file a Rent Control case for eviction of the tenant. Thereupon, the landlord filed the present petition for eviction.

(3.) The tenant filed counter stating that she has been paying the rents regularly and she never committed default in payment of rentals. It is further contended that the landlord does not require the petition schedule premises either for his residential accommodation or for non-residential purposes as he has got a palatial building at Akkayyapalem, It is further stated that the tenant is carrying on the business of Embroidery works for her livelihood; and that the landlord had recently put up the business of embroidery works in the ground floor of the petition schedule building only in order to rob the customers of the tenant and to deprive the tenant of her fruits of business so that she may vacate the premises on her one accord. It is lastly submitted that the tenant has no other house in Visakhapatnam to carry on the said business and she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship in case she is evicted from the petition schedule building.