SHANKARA NARAYANA M H Vs. A SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment in C.M.A.No. 15 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, dated 18-3-1993 dismissing the appeal of the landlord and confirming the order of dismissal of eviction petition filed by the said landlord in R.C.C.No. 4/91 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool, is assailed in this Revision Petition by the landlord. The parties will be referred to as "landlord and tenant" for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The landlord filed the eviction petition R.C.C.No. 4 of 1991 under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises which is a non-residential shop bearing D.No. 67/22-C, Port, Kurnool on the ground of bona fide personal requirement for the purpose of starting textile show-room. The tenant is in occupation of the premises since 18-11-1972 on monthly rent and it is extended from time to time. The rent on the date of petition is Rs. 825/- per month. The tenant is also in occupation of another shop in the same row on the eastern side paying a rent of Rs. 600/- per month and an engineering shop is being run by him and his wife in that premises. The landlord is the only son of M. Padmanabhaiah, who died when he was very young and he belongs to affluent family. The landlord has been working in Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Kurnool, for the last eight years and he has none to help him in the management of his immovable properties as his mother is old. Hence, he managed to be in Kurnool for the last eight years. But, his transfer is over due. It is his case that if he is transferred to a place other than Kurnool, he is not willing to leave Kurnool for the sake of his properties and he has decided to resign his job and open a textile show-room in the demised premises. When the tenant was told about the said intention, he agreed to vacate the premises by expiry of last extended period i.e., 31-12-1990. It is asserted that the demised premises is more convenient for the proposed business of the landlord, that his maternal uncle and his son are doing same business at Nandyal and they are willing to help him in his business venture. More over, his wife is a Commerce Graduate and she is capable of taking care of the business. In these circumstances, he requested the tenant to vacate the premises, but he refused to oblige. Hence, he filed the eviction petition before the Rent Controller.

(3.) The tenant resisted the petition by filing a counter-affidavit. He admitted the ownership of the landlord. It is averred that he has established his business in agricultural pump sets and ancillary products about 15 to 20 years back, that it was the practice of the petitioner to enter into an agreement in writing and on the expiry of the stipulated period to renew the agreement on enhancement of rent, that he demanded for enhancement of rent by 50% on the expiry of the period on 31-12-1990 and that he expressed his inability to enhance the rent by 50%. It is his case that the eviction proceedings were commenced by the landlord in those circumstances. It is then asserted by the tenant that his wife is in occupation of the Shop bearing D.No. 67/22-C and she is carrying on her own business independently. Adverting to the requirement of the landlord, it is stated that Medam family has not been in business line from the beginning and they have been doing agriculture and the landlord has been in service since a long time and he worked at different places viz., Kurnool, Adoni, Nandikotkur etc. It is specifically stated that he has been going and working at any place wherever posted and he has no experience in textile business, but his uncle at Nandyal instigated him to file eviction petition. It is lastly stated that the landlord wants to be in service and he has managed to be at Kurnool and is capable of managing to remain at Kurnool. It is also averred that the landlord has another shop bearing No. 67/22-A, which is vacant and if he proposes to start business, he can do so in that shop. Thus, it is stated that there are no bona fides in this petition.