K KOTESWARA RAO Vs. S NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land lord filed an application for eviction under Section 10(3) (a) (i) (a) and Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short). The Rent Controller found that the land lord failed to prove that the building is required for the residential occupation of his eldest son and hence dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge allowed the same, holding that the plea of bona fide requirement as set up by the land lord is correct and the petition schedule premises are required for the residential as well as business purpose for the land lord's son and allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the tenaat has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner hereinis the tenant of the southern side portion of the terraced building constructed prior to 26-8-1957 bearing Door No. 27-7-43 on Bandar Lakulu rond, Vijayawada on a monthly rent of Rs. 210/-. The premises was taken on rent both for residential and for business purpose. The landlord is having two buildings one in Sivalayam Street and another on Bindar Lakulu road (the suit schedule building). The landlord is residing in the upstairs portion of the building situated in Sivalayam Street and he is carrying on business in one portion in the ground floor in brass, steel and copper articles. He is also running the business with the aid of three clerks. There is another portion of the building in Sivalayam Street opening into the small lane. The landlord's eldest son also obtained a licence under Ex. A-1 to carry on his own business and he did business in that premises for some time. The landlord's son was married in the year 1976. As the landlord requires the premises which is in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of starting a business by bis undivided eldest son who is residing with him in his house, he filed the eviction petition. The tenant contended that as he has not increased the rent as demanded by the landlord, he came forward with the plea of his son's business and it is only with an oblique motive the eviction petition has been filed.

(3.) The trial Court found that the requirement of the landlord's sonfor starting a new business is not bonafide. In the appellate Court some documents have been filed and also an application was filed to examine the eldest son of the landlord. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord is true and correct.