CH SESHAIAH Vs. PEDA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the landlords, filed an application for eviction of the tenant i.e , the respondent herein from the non-residential premises which is in his occupation. The Rent Controller, after considering the documents, Exs. A-1 to A-20 found that the landlords are entitled for the possession of the suit premises. The Rent Controller also decide that though it was alleged that the building was constructed in the year 1978, the tenant has not canvassed the same and therefore, he found that the building was only renovated during the year 1977-78, but not constructed and hence exemption cannot be extended to the building in questiom The Rent Controller also found that the tenant has miserably failed to establish that there was oral lease for a period of 11 years till the end of 1989 and he has invested a sum of Rs. 18.000/- for renovation of the building. The plea that was set up by the tenant that the lease is a composite lease is also not accepted by the trial Court. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlords require the schedule premises for their occupation. On appeal, the lower appellate Court found that the plea of investment of Rs. 18,000/- by the tenant and the lease was for a period of 11 years is not correct. The contention of the tenant that the building is let out for composite purpose, both for residential and non-residential, is also not accepted. However, the learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the plea of the landlords for bonafide requirement of the premises and, therefore, set aside the fiding of the Rent Controller. It is against that, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by Sri C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel for thelandlords, that the building was orginally let out only for non-residential purpose and the building is required both for residential and non-residential and the finding of the lower appellate Court on that aspect is not correct.

(3.) Sri T. Dasaratha Ramaiah, the learned counsel for the respondenttenant contended that it is a composite lease and in view of the judgments rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court, the landlords are not entitled to intitiate the proceedings under the Rent Control Act.