SAVANI TRANSPORT P LTD Vs. S CH VENKATARAMMAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed aa application for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and also on the ground of damage to the suit schedule building. The Rent Coatroiler after due enquiry found that no case has been made out. Against that an appeal has been filed. The lower appellate Court, considering the facts and circumstaces of the case, found that the landlord has made out a case that the suit schedule building was required by him for a bona fide purpose for carrying on the business therein and to reside in it with his family, But the lower appellate Court confirmed the finding so far as the damage to the schedule building. It is against that finding the tenant has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) It may be stated here that even before filing this petition for eviction,the landlord filed a suit O.S.No. 463 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, and the same was decreed after contest on 26-2-1988. The certified copy of the decree is marked as Ex. A-l. Against that decree an appeal has been riled and while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court struck down Section 32 (B) of the Rent Control Act. Oa the legal advice, the landlord has filled the present application.

(3.) In this case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is admited. Thelandlord has no other residential or non-residential building in Kakinada town except the petition schedule building. The landlord is running a kirana business in the non-residential premises belonging to one Bbadrsm. The landlord is residing in his brother's house and he is having a wife and children. The Rent Controller took into consideration the discrepancies that have been found in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the time of construction of the building and the date of the agreement and came to the conclusion that no case has been made out by the landlord for eviction. When the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, the further probe that has been made by the Rent Controller into the details of construction or reconstruction of the house or the discrepancies in the evidence with regard to the construction as found in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is immaterial. The fact remains that the landlord has no other house other than the suit schedule building either for the purpose of residential premises or for non- residential purpose. The lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and found that since the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, the close scrutiny of the evidence that has been made by the Rent Controller basing on some discrepancies is not correct.