GARIPALLI RAJASREE Vs. KONDAPURAN MALLESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act, for brevity), arise out of same proceedings. This common order shall dispose of both the revision petitions. C. R. P. No. 1284 of 2004 is filed against order dated 30. 1. 2004 in r. A. No. 240 of 1999 passed by the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder learned appellate authority confirmed rejection order of learned Principal Rent Controller in R. C. No. 1 of 1997 filed by petitioner (landlady)for eviction of respondent (tenant) from non-residential premises (petition schedule premises or mulgi) bearing No. 7-1-635 (ground floor)situated at Subhash Road, Market Building, secunderabad. During pendency of R. A. No. 240 of 1999, landlady filed LA. No. 1025 of 2002 under Rule 11 (2) of Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control rules, 1961, requesting to receive documents as additional evidence. The same was dismissed by learned appellate authority by order dated 30. 1. 2004. C. R. P. No. 1289 of 2004 is filed against the said order.

(2.) PETITIONER, landlady, is owner of petition schedule mulgi bearing No. 7-1-635, having got the same under a Will executed by her mother-in-law. Her husband, koteswara Rao, is owner of a non-residential mulgi bearing No. 7-1-636 comprising ground floor and first floor. He is carrying on cloth business in the name and style of 'garipalli Konaiah' in his own premises. This is adjacent to petition schedule mulgi, which was let out to a firm, M/s. Kondapuram Mallesa and Brothers, for cloth business, in the name and style of 'bombay cloth Stores'. In August 1978, respondent was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 720/ -. Landlady has three sons, namely Bharath Kumar, Ashwath Kumar and Santosh Kumar, aged 20 years, 18 years and 17 years respectively. Elder son, bharath Kumar, was assisting his father in cloth business. She sought eviction of tenant on three grounds, namely, default in payment of municipal taxes (rent), bona fide requirement for personal occupation for starting new business for sons, and tenant securing alternate accommodation. Tenant opposed eviction petition. He alleged that there was no notice to pay municipal tax, that landlady has no financial wherewithal and her sons are not experienced in cloth business and that tenant firm has not secured any alternate accommodation for the firm, though individual partners secured alternate accommodation to provide business facilities to large number of members of joint family. Original authority as well as appellate authority held against landlady and dismissed eviction petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner/ landlady does not press ground of wilful default in this revision. Indeed as found by both the authorities landlady failed to prove that under tenancy, lessee was required to pay municipal tax and there was no notice to that effect. In addition to this admittedly landlady took Rs. 30,000/- as deposit and when tenant has deposited advance rent, question of wilful default does not arise. In these revision petitions, therefore, questions which need to be examined are whether landlady proved her case of personal occupation bona fide for commencing new business by her sons and whether tenant has secured alternate accommodation and for that reason he is liable to be evicted ? bona fide requirement for personal occupation