G NARAYANA Vs. GOGIKAR KISHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist who is the tenant assails the legality and propriety of the concurrent finding allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground that he requires the premises in question hona fide for starting an industry.

(2.) The respondent was the usr fructuary mortgagee of the non-residential building bearing No 6-1-62/A since long and he purchased the same on 5-2-1977 through a registered sale deed. The revisionist herein is the tenent under him even during the period of mortgage and continued after the purchase of the same by running a rice mill therein. The grounds for eviction are that the landlord has got two major sons who have completed graduation and they are unemployed ; the building in question has become old and is in a dilapidated condition ; the landlord and his sons intend to establish an electric motors manufacturing industry or any other like industry in the suit building by making necessary alterations and repairs and the landlord, after several oral requests and also issuance of legal notices vainly, filed the eviction petition, as he bona fide requires the premises for starting a new industry.

(3.) The tenant averred in his counter affidavit inter alia that it is controverted that the building has become old and is in a dilapidated condition. He has been running a rice mill since long and the building is quite in a fit condition. Indeed he purchased the rice mill from the original owner Devi Singh for Rs. 12,500/- which amount was paid to the respondent- landlord for discharge of the mortgage debt. In fact the said Devi Singh executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 21-11-1964. He spent huge amount for repairs and purchase of spare parts for running the rice mill. In fact in the year 1976 on the insistence the rent also has been enhanced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- per month. The eviction which is sought for is not bona fide, as the respondent-landlord is occupying a portion of the same building which is very big one and has open area running into seven acres. The portion which is in the occupation of the respondent-landlord can suitably be utilised for the industry which he intends to start. That apart, the respondent-landlord owns a very huge building complex with a large open area in Ramagiri locality as well . as three non-residential buildings. He also owns four non-residential buildings in other localities. The respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition with an ulterior motive to harass the revisionist-tenant in order to extract huge rents from him. The Rent Court held : "In the present case the landlord gave a notice for eviction through a registered notice which is mentioned for manufacturing current motor industry and he also mentioned in this petition, he also let in evidence regarding the bona fide requirement of the premises. The burden of proving the bona fide requirement is on the landlord. The landlord established bona fide requirement for business purpose. He further relied in A.P. Law Journal 1970 Short Notes on page 83. Justice P. Sree Ramulu held that "mere allegation in the petition or in the evidence that he requires a building for his business is not sufficient. The Rent Controller must be satisfied that that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. In the instant case, the landlord is not having a non-residential building for carrying business in those circumstances of eviction order is passed against the tenant". Now in the present case, the landlord is not having any other non-residential buildings and the petitioner himself is living in the non-residential building wherein the suit mill is situated. There is no doubt the petitioner is let in evidence regarding the bona fide requirement for the business for starting a current motor industry. The evidence adduced by the petitioner also proves that regarding the bona fide requirement he sought the eviction against the landlord". Further held ; "On the other hand, the respondent even he has not given any reply to the notices issued by the landlord. Apart from this, the petitioner's sons are unemployed and for the purpose of business, filed this petition. The contention raised by the respondent's counsel is not tenable. On the other hand, the respondent is harassing the petitioner without vacating the non-residential building caus" ing inconvenience to the landlord from the date of this petition also. They also stated that the said premises were required for establishing a business. Apart from this P.W. 5 is the son of P.W. 1 who is having electrical goods shop in some other place. Moreover, the petitioner's sons are unemployed and they have also got a technical qualifications and they have got a capacity to run a industry in the suit premises. The petitioner is having other houses they are not fit for the business purpose which are located in the residential locality." Also held : "Now in the present petition the petitioner sought for the eviction of a non-residential building for the purpose of starting a current motor business. is genuine one. The oral and documentary evidence produced before the court clearly established that the petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground that for the purpose of business..................... In the result, the petition is allowed The Appellate Court held : "But in the present case the tenant had not pleaded that the landlord obtained possession of the building during the pendency of the proceedings by filing a petition for that purpose. P.W. 1 stated that the building which came into his possession is not suitable for starting his industry as it is situated in a busy business locality. P.W. 1 stated in his evidence clearly that he is intending to start the industry by selling his house. The action of P. W, 1 in selling the house after obtaining possession, which is not suitable for starting industry, to my mind, is bona fide one so as to secure finances to start the business as contended by the advocate for the landlord-respondent. There is no evidence on record to show about the accommodation available in the house sold by P.W. 1." Also held ; "It is not the case of the appellant that respondent had obtained possession of the same before filing the petition. The very fact that the building is in the occupation of the tenant entitle the landlord to ask the appellant to vacate suit premises which is most suitable to start the industry. It is not the case of the appellant-tenant that the suit building is not suitable to locate the industry proposed by the landlord. P Ws. 1, 4 and 5 clearly stated that mulgies and house situated by the side of Canara Bank, house at old Bus stand, and the house in which Social Welfare Office was located are not suitable for starting industry which are situated in busy commercial locality of the town, which are under the occupation of the tenant on the date of the petition." Further held : "In the petition it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner wants to start current motor manufacturing industry in the suit premises with the aid of his sons. The statements of P. Ws. 1,4 and 5 clearly establish that the suit building is most suitable for starting current motor manufacturing industry and the petitioner and his sons got necessary finances and required ability to start the current motor manufacturing industry. In the counter it is not stated that PW1 has got vacant possession of his buildings suitable for starting the industry in which the petitioner can start the business on the date of the petition. The respondent had not established by adducing evidence that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had filed an eviction petition for the building for the purpose of starting current motor manufacturing industry and obtained possession of the same. The statement of RW-1 that the building in which Social Welfare Office was located is vacant during the pendency of the proceedings is not supported by the independent evidence. Hence. I am unable to rely on the statement of RW-1 that PW-1 could have started the industry in the building in which Social Welfare Office was located. Moreover, as per the statements of P.W.I, P.W.4 and P.W.5 it is clear that building owned by P.W.I are situated in commercial locality of Nalgonda town and buildings situated near Canara Bank, near old Bus stand and the building in which Social Welfare Department was located arc not suitable for starting current motor manufacturing industry." Also held : "In the above circumstances, I find on the point that requirement of the suit building 6-1-62A in the occupation of the appellant-tenant, by the petitioner for starting the current motor industry is bona fide."