DULICHAND SURANA Vs. PILLI LAKSHMI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord. The premises in question is mulgi or shop bearing No. 4-5-231 in the ground floor of the building bearing No. 4-5-231, 4-5-231/1 and 4-5-231/2 situated at Pan Bazar, Secunderabad. The rent that was agreed is Rs. 150/- per month exclusive of Rs. 50/- towards conservancy charges. The landlord filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has closed down the business about two years ago and he is carrying on a different business at different place and he has ceased to occupy the demised premises during the period. Another ground taken by the landlord is that his third son is without any employment or business and he has undergone apprenticeship and vocational guidance in the petitioner's business for the last three years and he now wants to start a new business. The tenant's case is that there is no arrears of rent as pleaded by the landlord, that there is no bath-room and lavatory in the suit premises, that there are iron materials belonging to the tenant in the suit premises at the time when ths Commissioner visited the shop and as. such it cannot be said that he ceased to use the premises, that the electricity supply was disconnected to all the tenants in the ground floor and no godown in the ground floor is having electricity supply for non-payment of the electricity charges by the landlord, that the landlord has got several mulgies and godowns in the twin cities and that the locality is not suitable for the kind of business which the landlord and his family are doing.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller has found that the tenant has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent, but held that the tenant ceased to occupy the suit premises since two years prior to the date of the filing of the petition and the landlord required the suit premises bonafide for running a business by his second son and ultimately ordered eviction of the tenant. Against that order of eviction, the tenant filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, The appellate Court also found that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the said concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned, counsel for the petitioner is that the concurrent finding of the two Courts that the tenant ceased to occupy t he demised premises is not correct. It is a concurrent rinding of fact arrived at basing on the evidence that has been let in by both the parties.