N SATYANARAYANA Vs. K KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the Judgment in R.C.A.No. 9 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram (Rent Control Appellate Authority), dated 19-7-1993 setting aside the eviction order in R.C.C.No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller-Principal District Munsif, Parvathipuram dated 7-10-1991.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the landlord of the demised premises, which is a non-residential building and he filed R.C.C.No. 1 of 1986 before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for short the 'Act', on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The Rent Controller after examining the landlord on one side and the tenant as well as three other witnesses on the other side and after scrutinising Exs. A-1 to A-4 and B-1 to B-10, found that the landlord has established his bonafide requirement of starting a business in pharmaceuticals and accordingly allowed the eviction petition. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, assailing the eviction order on various grounds and the learned appellate Judge on a reassessment of the evidence on record, came to a different conclusion and he reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on various grounds and allowed the appeal. The result was that the eviction petition stood dismissed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by that Judgment reversing the findings of the Rent Controller, the landlord is in this Court with this revision petition.

(3.) A few facts necessary for proper appreciation of the controversy that has arisen between the revision petitioner-landlord and the respondent-tenant are: That the landlord is a qualified compounder and a pharmacist, having three major sons, who are unemployed graduates. Himself and his sons decided to start pharmaceuticals business at Parvathipuram. The demised premises bearing No. 2054 is a shop which was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent. The shop bearing No. 2053 which was to the North of the demised premises was also let out to another tenant by name Tuviti Venkataramana and he was got evicted by the landlord by initiating proceedings before the Rent Controller. The measurements of the demised shop and the northern shop put together are about 20' in width and 35' in length. The landlord requested the tenant-respondent herein, to vacate the demised shop as he wanted to start his own business, but he refused to vacate the same and hence, he filed R.C.C.No. 6/1978 and the same was contested by the tenant. Thereafter, the landlord fell sick and so he allowed the tenant to continue the tenancy and that earlier petition was closed on a compromise. While so, the northern shop which fell vacant required repairs, but the repairs could not be carried out and that resulted in the fall of its roof as well as the walls. As the landlord and his three sons wanted to start a wholesale and retail business in Pharmaceuticals, they wanted to construct a beautiful spacious shop with modern amenities, whereas the northern shop is too small and as a space of 20 feet width and 35 feet length is required for construction of a big medical hall, they required the demised premises so that they may demolish the present shop and construct a bigger one on the combined site of the shops bearing Nos. 2053 and 2054. The landlord has sufficient financial capacity to start the above business and they have no shop room in their physical possession though there are 8 shop rooms within the municipal limits of Parvathipuram. It is, therefore, asserted that the requirement of the landlord is a bonafide one. The landlord issued a registered notice, dated 4-3-1986 and the tenant in turn sent a reply notice dated 27-3-1986. Then the eviction petition is filed.