G KRISHNA RAO Vs. LALIT KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the reversing judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in R.C.A.No. 121 of 1994. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed R.C.No 94/1991 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 12 (1) (b) and Section 12 (2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'A.P. Act 15 of 1960') on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of reconstructing a new building in the petition schedule premises, i.e., shed bearing No. 8577/B, Distillery Road, Secunderabad, with a plinth area of 3500 square feet. Originally, the father of the landlord let out the petition schedule premises and two office rooms to the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business in the name and style of 'Hari Side Lace Works'. The tenant is using the shed for manufacturing purposes by erecting machinery in the said shed and the two rooms as office rooms. The premises, which was constructed in the year 1940, subsequently fell to the share of the revision petitioner-landlord and since then the respondent-tenant has been paying rents to the petitioner. While so, in the year 1980, with a view to have a pucca building on the petition schedule premises, the petitioner entertained an idea of reconstructing a new building in place of the existing shed after demolishing the same. He, therefore, issued a notice to the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the building to him. He had, however, assured the tenant that he would redeliver possession of the petition schedule premises with newly constructed building. The tenant did not give any reply to the said notice. Subsequently, the landlord filed the petition for eviction under Section 12 (1) (b) and Section 12 (2) of the A.P. Act, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for the purpose of carrying reconstructions on the same.

(2.) The tenant put forth his defence contending that the petition schedule premises is not in a dilapidating condition and therefore it need not require any reconstruction and that the idea of reconstructing a new building in place of the existing shed was entertained only with an oblique motive to dislodge the tenant unceremoniously from the petition schedule premises. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlord's requirement is not a bona fide and genuine one. It is further contended that the area available for use after reconstruction will also get reduced into 1271 square feet from the existing plinth area of 3500 square feet in view of the proposal to construct 4 shop rooms in the existing space, which would be very much insufficient for the tenant to erect his machinery. Therefore, it is submitted that the premises after reconstruction will virtually become unsuitable for the tenant and the tenant in such a case has to search for another accommodation and that in this city of Hyderabad it would be an uphill task for him to secure alternate accommodation and that by the time he could secure alternate accommodation, he would certainly suffer great hardship and irreparable loss personally and also to his company's goodwill. It was submitted that all these efforts by the landlord were done only with a view to evict the tenant from the petition schedule premises and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord cannot be said to be a genuine requirement.

(3.) On the above pleadings, evidence was let in before the trial Court. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule premises for reconstruction and thus passed an order of eviction and further directed the landlord to put the tenant into possession of the premises after reconstruction. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, under the impugned order, reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller by solely placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in P. Orr & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Associated Publishers (Mad) Ltd., in which Section 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease,Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'T.N.Act') fell for consideration. Hence, the revision by the landlord.