NIKKANTI RAMAKRISHNA Vs. ATMAKURI SASIKIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, in CMA No.45 of 1997 dated 22-12-1998.

(2.) It is no longer in dispute before me that the suit accommodation is a non-residential building and the petitioner was a tenant. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the children of the deceased late Rangaraju, respondent No.5 is his wife and respondent Nos.6 and 7 are his brothers. The said Rangaraju had filed an application for ejectment of respondent Nos.8 and 9, alleging that they were his tenants, on the ground of wilful default and bona fide need of the suit accommodation for starting new business after demolition of the suit accommodation and its re-construction, because it had become dilapidated. The petitioner got himself impleaded as a party to the case on the ground that he was the real tenant in respect of the suit accommodation. After examination of late Ramaraju, he expired and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were impleaded as applicants in his place. They did not adduce any further evidence. They had filed IA No.5119 of 1996 for amending the petition, but it was rejected by Rent Controller on 11-3-1997.

(3.) The Rent Controller on assessment of the evidence found that even with the death of the original applicant-Rangaraju, the bona fide need for the suit accommodation did not cease to exist and the applicants need bona fide the suit accommodation for starting a new business, and ordered the petitioner to vacate the suit accommodation. The Rent Controller had found that the petitioner is not liable to be ejected on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, but without success.