GH RAMANJANEYULU Vs. R NAGURA HAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein is the tenant. The respondents filed a petition under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in January, 1981 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he commmitted wilful default from April !, 1979 to March 31, 1980 and thereafter, as well as on the ground that the premises was bonafide required by the second respondent herein for additional accommodation to expand his cloth business.

(2.) The petition schedule premises was leased out by late Ranganayakulu who is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent herein in or about the year 1964. Ranganayakulu died in the year 1975. As per the evidence of the tenant who got himself examined as R.W- 1, he and his brother were carrying on business in the petition schedule premises and after the death of his brother in the year 1975, the portion on the eastern side of the petition schedule premises in which the brother of the tenant was carrying on cloth business, was surrendered to the second respondent in the year 1976 and eversince then he was carrying on cloth business in that portion.

(3.) The case of the tenant was that before the surrender of the eastern portion in favour of the second respondent, the rent that was being paid was Rs. 2,000/- per annum and after the surrender of the eastern portion in favour of the second respondent in the year 1976, the rent was reduced to Rs. 1,200/- per annum. As he had paid Rs. 1,037-09p. on May 19, 1980 and Rs. 1,200/-on June 12, 1980 towards the rent payable for the period April 1, 1979 to May 19, 1980, no more rent was due from the tenant to the landlords and therefore it cannot be said that there was any default much less wilful default in payment of the rent. Regarding the bonafide requirement of additional accommodation, it was stated that the tenant installed a flour mill in the petition schedule premises immediately after the premises was leased out by late Ranganayakulu and eversince then he was running the flour mill in the premises having obtained requisite licence from the concerned authorities. It was his further case that the second respondent hrein got a room constructed in chowtra bazar in the very same Chilakaluripet town for the purpose of carrying on business. But he leased out that room with an oblique motive and sought additional accommodation merely to harass the tenant and extract under the guise of bonafide requirement of additional accommodation, more rent. According to the tenant, under these circumstances, the hardship likely to be caused by ordering eviction will be more to the tenant when compared to the advantage that may accrue to the landlord. In other words, proper assessment of the relative hardship likely to be caused to the landlord and the tenant, in the light ot the facts and cirumstances of the case, warrants that no order of eviction shall be passed. The landlord has been carrying on the business in the eastern portion of the petition schedule premises and if the tenant is evicted from the western portion in which he is running the flour mill, he will have to secure a separate licence for the installation of the flour mill in a different place and it would be difficult to secure alternative accommodation to install such a flour mill in that town.