JUPUDI SRIRANGANAYAKULU Vs. BONAGIRI SUBBALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT , who suffered an order of eviction at the appellate stage, is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent-landlady filed the petition before the learned Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, in R.C. No. 20/1987 under S. 10(3)(b)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement contending that the said premises is required for use by her husband as he intended to start a kirana business therein. In support of her contention, the landlady examined her husband as PW1. On behalf of the tenant, he got himself examined as RW1. After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said petition by order dated 7.6.1993 holding that the non-examination of the landlady is fatal to the case. Thereupon, the matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority in RCA No. 17 of 1993, who, by order dated 31.8.1995, reversed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and ordered for eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant. The Appellate Authority took the view that the respondent-landlady by examining her husband as PW1 had discharged the burden lying upon her for the proof of personal occupation and bona fide requirement of the petition schedule building and that the petitioner (respondent herein) is, therefore, entitled for eviction of the tenant.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present revision is preferred by the tenant mainly contending that the bona fide requirement is the state of mind of the person who takes that plea and it must be deposed by that person alone who is requiring the premises. It is, therefore, contended that the non- examination of the landlady in this case is fatal to her case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nanalal Goverdhandas and Co. v. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, AIR 1981 Bom. 1. He also cited the decision of Orissa High Court in Chinta Narayanamma v. Kohlli Sahu, AIR 1982 Orissa 183 and that of Delhi High Court in M.L. Khurana v. H.S. Chopra, 1993(2) APLJ (DNC) 39 : 1993(2) RCR 305.

(3.) HAVING gone through the provisions of S. 10 of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that the non-examination of the landlady in the facts and circumstances of this case is not at all fatal. Even though the petition for eviction is filed by the land lady on the ground of bona fide requirement, the premises is, in fact, required bona fide by her husband. The fact as to the requirement of the premises is very well known to the husband of the landlady also. He is neither a stranger nor a mere attorney on behalf of the landlady. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW1 husband is not competent to speak to the fact in issue. It cannot also be said that the landlady alone is the right person to speak about the requirement. Law of evidence requires proof of a fact which is pleaded by a party by way of adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The fact so pleaded must not necessarily be proved only by the person pleaded, but he can prove it through any of the modes that is required under the law of evidence. The state of mind of the landlady in this case is the requirement of the premises for use by her husband. The said fact is proved by her by examining her husband. When the fact pleaded is proved, it is not necessary for the Court to probe into the competency or otherwise of the witness who is examined to prove the said fact. Further, as rightly held by the Madras High Court in V.R. Shah's case (supra), if all the requirements of S. 10(3) of the Act are fulfilled, that will be enough to grant the relief that is sought for by the landlady. Therefore, I am of the view that the non-examination of the landlady is not fatal. For these reasons, I am not inclined to agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court which is cited by Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad. For these reasons, I find no merit in the revision.