BOLLABHA ARTHO THYADI Vs. GRANDHI KAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arising out of rent control proceedings are preferred by the tenants occupying two different portions of a building located in Visakhapatnam town. The respondent-landlord filed H. R. C. Nos. 33, 34 and 35/68 against the tenants occupying three different portions of the hoiue bearing No.2615180 on the grounds ol wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide tequirement of the landlord for personal occupation for doing business. The learnet, Rent Controller negatived both the grounds and dismissed the eviction petitions. The Lower Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeals and ordered eviction. In one of the three cases, the tenant has not preferred a revision while the tenants occupying two portions have preferred these two revision petitions.

(2.) When these revision petitions came up before our learned Brother Jagannadha Rao, J., he referred the matter to a Division Bench expressing the view that the decision of P. Rama Rao, J. in Arjundas vs. Madan Lai Madil was in a way overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 7721 and 7784 of 1979, but the ruling of the Supreme Court in Shri Balaganesan Metals vs. M. N. Shanmugham Chetty supports the view taken by P. Rama Rao, J., in Arjundas Case (supra).

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that eviction is sought in respect of a building bearing Municipal No. 79 in Visakhapatnam; that according to the landlord his father has let out three portions of that building to three different tenants that those portions were allotted door Nos. 178, 179 and 180; that the portions were let out to the petitioners in the two C. R. Ps. for residential purpose; that the landlord is carrying on business in a rented premises and that he is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenants from the residential premises for non-residential purpose.