Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 819 (AP)

A. Tulasidas v. B. Poornachandra Rao

2002-07-02

body2002
( 1 ) THE tenant of a nonresidential premises door bearing No. 20/3/24 situated at Guntur Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said property ) filed this revision petition questioning the order dated 12/02/2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed in RCA No. 17/1995 in dismissing his appeal filed against the order dated 02/02/1995 made in R. C. C. No. 21/1992 on the file of the Rent Controller, Guntur ordering of the eviction of the petitioner herein. ( 2 ) THE respondent - landlord in the said premises has filed an application under Section 10 (2) (i) (iii) and (3) (a) (ii) of the A. P. Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) for eviction of the tenant on the ground of the willful default of payment of rent, acts of waste and bona fide requirement of the said nonresidential premises. The Rent Controller held that there was default of two months rent and negatived the grounds of acts of waste and held that the premises is bona fide required for the purpose of carrying on the business by the landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant/petitioner herein filed R. A. 17/1995. The Rent Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the trial court. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. ( 3 ) SO far as the willful default of payment of rent for the months of January and February, 2002 is concerned, admittedly there is a deposit of Rs. 700/- and the monthly rent is only Rs. 210/ -. Even the aforesaid rent has been paid on 23/03/1992 and the eviction petition filed in April, 1992 and as on the date of the filing of the eviction petition, there are no arrears of rent, and therefore, no cause of action continues for filing the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default. There are no arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the application, and therefore, the question of any willful default in payment of rent does not arise and accordingly the said finding of the both the authorities below that there is a willful default of payment of rent is set aside. There are no arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the application, and therefore, the question of any willful default in payment of rent does not arise and accordingly the said finding of the both the authorities below that there is a willful default of payment of rent is set aside. There are no arrears of rents as on the date of filing of the eviction petition and the tenant has not made any willful default for payment of rents. The only question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the suit schedules premises is bona fide required for the business purpose of the landlord/respondent herein. ( 4 ) THE petitoner has stated in his eviction petition which is filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act that he is a businessman in chillies and grains and he has no other accommodation for running the business and that he is facing hardship in carrying on the business in a rented accommodation and the suit schedule premises is very convenient to him for carrying on his business as the said premises is situated adjacent to his residence separated by a door way. Hence, he requires the suit-scheduled premises for his personal occupation for carrying on the business. The landlord was examined as PW-1 wherein he has stated that he is a businessman by profession and he needs the petition scheduled property for carrying on the business of chillies and grains. His residence is situated by the side of the said premises connected with a door. He requires the petition scheduled property for his business purpose and presently he is carrying on the chilli business in the agricultural market yard, Guntur. The petitioner is also having another nonresidential building occupied by a tenant and the said premises is not vacant. It was the case of the landlord that the said premises is very convenient to him for shifting of his business and the petitioner is not having any vacant shop. ( 5 ) BOTH the authorities below held that the said premises is bona fide required by the landlord/respondent herein. It was the case of the landlord that the said premises is very convenient to him for shifting of his business and the petitioner is not having any vacant shop. ( 5 ) BOTH the authorities below held that the said premises is bona fide required by the landlord/respondent herein. Under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) if the owner of the nonresidential building is not occupied and if he is carrying on the business, he can file an application before the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant and put the landlord in the possession in the said nonresidential premises for the purpose of carrying on the business which he is presently carrying on as on the date of the filing of the application under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. There is no question of bona fide requirement for requiring nonresidential premises if he is already carrying on the business and desires to occupy the nonresidential portion if he is not in occupation of the nonresidential building of his own. Under Section 10 (3) (iii) (b) of the Act if the landlord desires to commence the business in a nonresidential portion and if the landlord requires nonresidential premises for his bona fide requirement of commencing the business, he can seek eviction of the tenant. In the instant case, the question of landlord bona fide purpose does not arise as he is already in the business and he would like to shift his business from the rented premises to his own nonresidential premises, which is abutting to his residential house. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court in RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR V. FIRM PREM MACHINERY and CO (1) held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or nonresidential purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter to choose the premises for his occupation of the same either in respect of the residential or nonresidential purpose. In the case on hand, the landlord sought to evict the tenant from the said premises for shifting of his business under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, and therefore, the question of considering bona fide requirement does not arise as it is not the case of the commencement of a new business. In the case on hand, the landlord sought to evict the tenant from the said premises for shifting of his business under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, and therefore, the question of considering bona fide requirement does not arise as it is not the case of the commencement of a new business. If it is a case of the commencement of a business after evicting the tenant from the nonresidential premises, then only the question of considering the bona fide purpose would arise. ( 7 ) THE Apex Court in G. KAUSHALYA DEVI V. GHANSHYAMDAS (2) held that a landlord is in possession of a nonresidential building which is not of his own can seek eviction of nonresidential premises belonging to him and occupied by any tenant. I, therefore, do not see any illegality or irregularity in the eviction proceedings of both the authorities below and the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, time is granted upto 31st October, 2002 to the petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said property to the landlord - respondent subject to his filing an undertaking within one month from today before the Rent Controller that he will vacate and handover the said property to the landlord on or before 31/10/2002 and also continue to pay the rents regularly. There shall be no order as to costs.