CHALLA MAHESHWARA RAO Vs. VADAGAM VENKATA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' revision under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (the Act, for brevity ). Petitioners lost before original authority as well as appellate authority, in the eviction petition being RCC No. 77 of 1997 filed by landlord- first respondent herein; on the ground of bona fide requirement, wilful default and subletting and RCA No. 8 of 2000. Petition schedule premises bearing No. 22-4-114 is situated at Zinnah Tower at Guntur, which is statedly busy commercial area. Petitioners and second respondent, who are arrayed as opposite parties in R. C. C. before Rent controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, guntur, are running M/s. Ganesh Medicals. Landlord filed eviction petition alleging subletting, wilful default for the period from october 1996 to January 1997 and requiring premises for bona fide personal occupation, for commencing business in electronics goods. They denied subletting and contended that though premises was initially let out by landlord to first petitioner, he is carrying on business along with his brother, second petitioner, who is a pharmacist. With regard to alleged wilful default, tenants pleaded that they paid rents for the months of October, november and December 1996 to landlord's natural grandfather, Kesava Rao, who used to receive rents making plea that receipts would be issued later. Bona fide requirement was opposed alleging that landlord, his father and grandfather demanded enhancement of rent and when the same was refused, landlord filed the petition with mala fide intention.

(2.) LANDLORD examined himself as PW. 1 and his father was examined as PW. 2. Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Tenants marked Exs. B1 to B21 and examined RW. 1 (first petitioner) and RW. 2, who is father-in-law of brother of RW. l. Learned Rent controller framed three substantial points for consideration dealing with question of wilful default, question of subletting and question of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. On the first question, it was held that tenants committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from October 1996. For coming to such conclusion, learned Rent Controller relied on Exs. Bl to b10 rent receipts from December 1995 to september 1996 and inferred when there was practice of landlord issuing rent receipts, non-production of the same for the period from October 1996 to January 1997 shows there is wilful default. On the question of subletting, finding was against tenants for the reason that admittedly RW. l had no registration certificate and such certificate was obtained in the name of other two tenants. After noticing the fact that landlord is an unemployee having M. B. A. degree and that he wanted to start business in electronics, as the area is known for electronics business, and also holding that tenants failed to prove their allegation that petition is mala fide, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that premises is bona fide required by landlord for commencing business. Petitioners herein appealed. Learned appellate authority agreed with findings of original authority and dismissed appeal being RCA No. 8 of 2000 confirming eviction of tenants.

(3.) IN this revision, learned Counsel for petitioners/tenants submits that when landlord seeks eviction of tenants for the purpose of demolishing existing premises to construct a new premises, the same does not fall under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the act and that landlord has to necessarily seek an order of eviction as per provisions of Section 12 of the Act. She also submits that plea of subletting taken by landlords was misconceived. The business was carried on by Challa Maheswara Rao taking the assistance of other two persons and the same does not amount to subletting. She also impugned findings of lower authority with regard to wilful default. Per contra, learned Counsel for first respondent/ landlord submits that the first petitioner as RW. l admitted that he has no licence or registration to carry on pharmaceutical business and that he obtained said certificate in the name of other two persons and in the absence of any proof that it was a firm, subletting has to be inferred. He points out that RW. l did not file any partnership deed to support plea of business by firm. Secondly he submits that there is evidence on record to show that landlord was issuing rent receipts and rw. l having accepted the same, failed to prove that he did not commit wilful default. Lastly he submits that Section 12 of the Act is not attracted. Landlord wants schedule premises for commencing electronics business and if he alleges, though it is not necessary, that he wants to raise a new complex, it cannot be treated that it is a case of demolition/renovation of tenanted premises. He placed reliance on Tara Singh v. Wahid bi, AIR 1973 AP 273, Vishnu Prasad Bhatt v. K. Narayan Rao, AIR 1982 AP 375 and aswani Desai (Smt.) v. Visakhapatnam municipal Corporation, 2000 (1) ALD 770 = 2000 (2) ALT 2.