T VENKATAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. T K SREEDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge, Tirupathi) directing the eviction of the tenant from the petition schedul.3d premises. The case of the respondents herein was that they are the owners of the premises bearing No. 143 and that the front portion of this building was converted into a shop and that the revision petitioner herein took the said shop portion, assigned door No. 143/A, and one upstairs room in the adjoining portion, which is assigned door No. 143, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. Later on, the revision petitioner is said to have committed default in payment of rent and that as the landlords required additional accommodation for their residential purpose, they laid a petition through their guardian in H.R.C. No. 19/69, but that was dismissed. As against the said dismissal, C.M.A. No. 8/70 was filed, which was allowed. The revision petitioner herein filed C.R.P. No. 1003/70 on the file of the High Court of Judicature. Pending the revision petition, the parties were said to have entered into a compromise, wherein the tenant agreed to raise the rent to Rs. 40/- per month and also undertook to vacate the premises on expiry of 3 years ie., on or before 30-9-73. It is now alleged that the revision petitioner viz., tenant failed to vacate the same, after the expiry of the stipulated period and that upstair portion is required for residential purposes of the petitioners as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are said to be studying M.Sc. and B.Sc.respectively in Tirupati University and that their parents are also living with them. The residential accommodation covered by door No. 143 is said to be insufficient. They thus wanted to acquire the upstair portion by way of additional accommodation. They further alleged that only a wall separates the portions 143 and 143/A and that by removing the intervening wall, the portion covered by door No. 143/A is to be converted into a big hall for the purpose of sufficient accommodation for the family. The tenant resisted the petition on the ground that the requirement is not a bonafide one and that one of the petitioners is not residing at Tirupati and had been living at Hyderabad and the petitioners 2 and 3 have also completed their respective courses in M.Sc., and B.Sc. It is also averred that the provisions of law under which the petition is laid are not at all applicable, in the sense that the landlord does not reside in the building covered by door No. 143/A. In support of this petition, the 2nd petitioner has been examined himself as P.W. 1. The respondent examined himself and another witness in support of his contention that the requirement was not a bonafide one. On a consideration of the entire material placed before him, the learned Rent Controller held that the accommodation in the occupation'of the petitioners is meagre and not sufficient for them and therefore he directed the eviction of the tenant from the upstairs portion. He also found that by conversion of the front shop, more accommodation would be available, by removing the wall that separates both the portions. He thus held the requirement was a bonafide one and ordered the eviction of the tenant. On appeal,these findings are confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision.

(2.) It is now contended that admittedly, the petitioners 2 and 3 have completed their education and that the 3rd petitioner is now living at Hyderabad and therefore no additional accomodation is required even with regard to the residential portion covered by Door No. 143 The evidence of P.W. 1 has been believed by both the Courts below There is a concurrent finding on this aspect and I do not see any impropriety so far as this finding is concerned. It is seen that according to the evidence of P.W. 1, his parents and even his grand-mother is living with them Even according to R.W. 2, the accommodation available is that of only a hall, a dining room and a kitchen. Though he would put it that in all there are 4 rooms, his evidence was believed by both the Courts below Having regard to the number of persons who are now occupying this resi dential portion No. 143, it appears that the requirement of upstair portion for the study of the 2nd petitioner is essentially required and therefore it is a bonafide requirement.

(3.) As regards the shop portion covered by 143/A, the case of the petitioner is that, by removing the wall in between the two portions the shop portion can be converted into a big hall so as to provide additional accommodation for the family members. The contention of Shri E. Mano har, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is that a separate municipal number is assigned to this portion as 143/A and that the said portion though structurally part of the same building is by itself a building in view of the definition of 'building' contained in Section 2 (iij) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The further contention is that, since the landlord does not reside in any portion of this building covered by door No. 143/A, the question of additional accommodation in the said building does not arise. His contention is that though the landlord occupies the adjoining portion covered by door No. 143, his requirement of the premises bearing No. 143/A cannot be said to be a requirement of additional accommodation. This contention was sought to be met by the learned counsel for the respondents that the building is structurally one and as a fact he has stated in his petition that the premises No. 143/A is only part and parcel and that this contention was not at all raised by the tenant in the courts below.