LAWS(APH)-1988-6-22

GANGISETTY RAMANAIAH Vs. MIRZA RASOOL BAIG

Decided On June 10, 1988
GANGISETTY RAMANAIAH Appellant
V/S
MIRZA RASOOL BAIG Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 15-12-87 in R C A No. 5/87 of the 1st Addl. Subordinate Judge/ Appellate Authority, Warangal.

(2.) The Petitioner is the land-lord and the respondent is the tenant. The schedule premises is 12-1-71 (Old No. 12/ 80) at Swamy Vivekanada Road; Warangal. The premises was let-out to the respondent under Ex. A-1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- for carrying on business. The case of the landlord is that he is running a medical shop in Mulgi bearing No. 6-1-161 Main Road, Hanamkonda belonging to one Smt. Kamala Devi. The said Mulgi is likely to be acquired by the Urban Development Authority under the road- widening programme and in fact Smt. Kamala Devi by filing a suit obtained orders of interim injunction against the urban development authority. The suit plaint and written statement are Exs. A-7 and A-8. The petitioner pleads that the moment the interim injunction gets vacate, the Urban Development Authorities would pull down and demolish the mulgi for widening the road. So, the petitioner requires the schedule premises for carrying on his medical, stores business. The petitioner also stated that his eldest son is running his "Vasavi Hoisery and Cloth Shop" in the small passage leading to his residential house and that Hoisery and Cloth Business is also being expanded for which purpose the schebule premises is very much suitable. The petitioner further stated that the schedule premises is of a very old construction and requires re-construction, Besides this bona fide requirement for carrying on business, the Land-Lord also pleaded that the tenant was guilty of committing wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant filed a counter stating that the requirement of the premises is not bona- f ide and that the eviction proceedings are initiated due to the refusal of the tenant to enhance the rent to Rs. 1,000/-. The tenant therefore was obliged to file a suit and obtain orders of injunction against his eviction. The respondent-tenant also stated that he never committed any wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The land-lord examined himself as P W 1 and another as P W 2, and marked Exs. A-i to A-10. The tenant has examined himself as R W 1 and another as R W 2. The Rent controller after examining the entire evidence let-in found that there was no wilful committed by the tenant. However, he found that the requirement of the land-lord is bona fide and accordingly directed eviction. Against this order, the tenant preferred the appeal which was allowed by dismissing the eviction petition. Hence this Revision.