PUSHPA TRADING COMPANY Vs. BOORGU JAGADESHWARAIAH AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition filed by the tenant was earlier heard and allowed by order dated 26-6-1995. Aggrieved by that order the landlord approached the Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No. 8466 of 1995 the Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court for considering the objection of the tenant as to the claim of the landlord. Therefore on remand from Supreme Court this revision petition is taken up for consideration.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The landlord-respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No. 7-3-697 to 701 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. He filed R.C.No. 275 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the said premises leased out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 460/-, exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground that the tenant committed acts of waste. The said premises is non-residential. The respondent-landlord. is carrying on the business in wholesale cloth in partnership under the name and style of 'Boorgu Textiles' in a rented premises Nos. 2096 and 2097, situated at Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad. Since the demised premises was required for carrying on wholesale cloth business, the landlord filed the rent case before the Rent-Controller for eviction of the tenant, which was allowed. The tenant- petitioner filed the appeal against the order of eviction in R.A.No. 342 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, who confirmed the order of the trial Court. Against that order the tenant preferred the present revision.

(3.) in this revision the only argument advanced at the time of hearing was that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlord acquired a non-esidential premises at Begumpet and therefore the bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises by the landlord ceased to exist and consequently the revision petition should be allowed dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord. On the basis of the submission made by the tenant I have called for a report from the Rent-Controller as to the suitability of the building constructed by the landlord in Begumpet for the purpose of carrying on wholesale cloth business. The Rent-Controller submitted his report on 27-9-1994 on a consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1, which reads as follows: