VENKATI PENCHALIAH Vs. MUNIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision petition is preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, reversing that of the Rent Controller, Nellore, allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the respondents from his premises bearing D. No. 431, Ward 18, situate in Big Bazar, Nellore, let out to the respondents on payment of a monthly rent Rs. 75 under Exhibit A-1 dated 1st April, 1971 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of commencing a new business in cloth.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the above revision petition lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated: The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing D. No. 431, Ward No. 18, situated in Big Bazar, Nellore, The premises was leased out to the respondents on a monthly rent Rs. 35. Later it was increased to Rs. 60. Still later the rent was enhanced to Rs. 75 under Exhibit A-1 dated 1st April, 1971. The respondents have been carrying on the business of preparing and selling sweetmeats in the shop let out to than. Abutting the shop is another shop owned by the petitioner in which he has been carrying on business in grocery. As the petitioner intended to commence a new business in cloth in the premises let out to the respondents, he called upon the respondents by a notice, Exhibit A-2 dated 20th April, 1972 issued by his advocate, to vacate the premises. The respondents caused replies, Exhibits A-3 and A-4 to be sent to the petitioner stoutly denying the plea of bona fide requirement of the premises by the petitioner and imputing mala, fides to him in making the demand. The respondents not having vacated the premises, the petitioner was constrained to move the Rent Controller, Nellore, on 9th June, 1972 for eviction of the respondents under section 10 (3) (a ) (iii) of the Act. Tt was also pleaded by the petitioner that the respondents, having purchased another premises near the premises let out to them, suitable for carrying on their business, could conveniently shift their business and vacate the premises. The petition was resisted by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner demanded payment of enhanced rent, that when the respondents could not accede to the demand, the petitioner came forward with a false plea of bona fide requirement of the premises for commencing a new business and that the plea was only a ruse to claim or collect enhanced rent from the respondents or from others by letting out the same to them in case he succeeded in his unholy attempt. After enquiry into the rival contentions of both the parties and on examination of the evidence let in by them, it was found by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was not actuated by any oblique motive in demanding the respondents to vacate the premises, that the premises was bona fide required by him for commencing a ,new business and that the respondents would not be put to hardship as they had secured, by purchase, suitable accommodation nearby, for carrying on their business. In the result, an order of eviction of the respondents was passed by the Rent Controller. On appeal by the respondents, the learned Subordinate Judge, while affirming the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was not actuated by any oblique motive in demanding the respondents to vacate the premises, however, found that it was not satisfactorily established by the petitioner that the premises was bona fide required by him for commencing a new business in cloth. No categorical finding as to the availability of alternate accommodation for the respondents to carry on their business was recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge. In the result, the petition for eviction was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri Jagannadha Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge, that the petitioner was not actuated by an oblique motive in demanding the respondents to vacate the premises is erroneous and not warranted by the material on record and that the respondents are certainly entitled to sustain the order of the learned Subordinate Judge by successfully assailing the correctness! of the said finding while the proposition advanced by Sri Jagannadha Rao that the order passed by the learned subordinate Judge can be sustained by the respondents on a ground that did not found acceptance with him, if the material placed before the Court is sufficient to make out the ground, I must, however, observe that no error whatsoever was committed by the learned Subordinate Judge in reaching the conclusion assailed before me. It may be recalled that the case of the respondents is that when they refused to accede to the demand of payment of enhanced rent for the premises, on 13th April, 1972, the petitioner resorted to the provision contained in section 10 (3) (a) (in) of the Act by inventing a false plea of bona fide requirement of commencement of a new business. In Exhibit B-1, notice dated 14th April, 1972, caused to be issued to the petitioner bv the respondents, it is however, alleged that the petitioner demanded enhanced rent from the first respondent. During the enquiry the first respondent, however, stated that the petitioner demanded enhanced rent from the 2nd respondent and that the same was relayed to him. The material discrepancy brought out during the enquiry, as rightly held by the learned Subordinate Judge, sufficiently discredits the oblique motive attributed to the petitioner. No reliance can be placed upon the testimony of R.W. 3, as the version spoken to by him is at variance with that set out in Exhibit B-2. Moreover, it was elicited in cross-examination of R.W. 3 that he was very friendly with the respondents. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that the petitioner was not actuated by any oblique motive or influenced by any mala fides in demanding the respondents to vacate the premises.