Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1546 (AP)

J. R. Ramesh Kumar v. N. Prabhakar Rao

2003-12-16

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) HEARD Sri P. Srinivas, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri shivram Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondent. ( 2 ) THE present Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing by virtue of an order of remand made by the Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 7457 of 2001, dated 02-11-2001. In fact, C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996, dated 5-9-2000 was allowed by this court with costs on the ground of bonafide requirement to the landlord holding that the Tribunals below had not appreciated the concept of bonafide requirement in proper perspective. It is brought to my notice that C. M. P. No. 8458 of 1998 in C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 was filed for receiving documents filed along with that petition as additional evidence and c. M. P. No. 8459 of 1998 in C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 was filed to amend the original rent case by adding para 5 (a ). These applications were, in fact opposed by the tenant. As can be seen from the order made in C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 and also the order of remand made by the Apex Court, none of the parties had touched the C. M. Ps. and consequently no findings had been recorded in this regard. Both the counsel had advanced elaborate submissions on this a spect. The stand taken by the counsel representing the revision petitioner is that though there is a vague denial relating to the change of business, in the latter paras there is specific admission and in the light of the same it should be taken as admission made by the tenant and this ground also may be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned judge while deciding C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 obviously thought it fit to allow revision petition on the ground of bonafide personal requirement only and hence the subsequent events were left untouched. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned judge while deciding C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 obviously thought it fit to allow revision petition on the ground of bonafide personal requirement only and hence the subsequent events were left untouched. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Shivram Prasad, the learned counsel representing the tenant contended that the parties were conscious of the pendency of these applications in the revision, But, when the contentions were not advanced in this regard, it should be taken that these grounds raised as subsequent events had been given up and hence the said ground, if any, should not be raised again, when the specific remand order was made by the Apex Court limiting the order of remand only to the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The counsel also had explained the scope and ambit of subsequent events and made elaborate submissions relating to the fact that at the best this is a new cause of action and there is no point in permitting the parties to amend the pleading or to receive additional evidence at this stage on the ground that these facts fall under subsequent events. The counsel also no doubt pointed out the limitations of the revisional court in receiving additional evidence at the revisional stage. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel. ( 5 ) THE revision petitioner is the landlord of the petition schedule premises, which is a portion of the building, on a monthly tenancy. The landlord filed R. C. No. 355 of 1980 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default, unauthorized sub-leasing a portion of the petition schedule premises and requirement of the landlord as non- residential premises for the purpose of his business which he is carrying on the date of r. C. The tenant as respondent in R. C. had resisted all the grounds and had explained that the landlord intentionally refused to receive the rents and he had sent the money order and consequently the landlord accepted the money order and explained the circumstances and had taken a specific stand and there is no willful default at all. Tenant also had taken a specific stand that he had not sub-let the premises at all and Vijaya Chit fund Company is not a sub-lessee, but it is a business commenced for the benefit of his son and hence there is no subletting at all. On the aspect of bona fide requirement specific stand was taken by the tenant that the landlord already filed R. C. No. 34 of 1979 as against yet another tenant for eviction which was even confirmed by the High Court and the tenant vacated the premises and the landlord had not occupied the said premises and this itself shows that there is no bonafide requirement. The Tribunals below no doubt recording different types of reasons ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner landlord is not entitled to the relief of eviction. In C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 this court on the ground that the Tribunal below had misdirected themselves on the concept of bonafide requirement, had reversed the order and had arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner landlord is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same the respondent in the aforesaid C. R. P. had carried the matter to the Apex Court in civil Appeal No. 7457 of 2001. It may be appropriate to have a look at the relevant portion of the order made by the Apex Court dated 02-11-2001 which reads as follows:"in the instant case the High Court did not indicate any reasons for not sustaining the order of the appellate authority. We are therefore, unable to uphold the impugned order of the High court. Inasmuch as we are of the view that remanding the case to the High court for fresh disposal in accordance with law will meet the ends of justice, we refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 to the file of the High Court for deciding the same in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation made in this order. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 to the file of the High Court for deciding the same in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation made in this order. " ( 6 ) ON a careful reading of the order of remand made by the Apex Court, it is clear that the C. R. P. No. 5093 of 1996 is restored to file and it is needless to say that the applications which were left untouched for whatever reasons while disposing of the c. R. P. also are available on record now. I had gone through the evidence recorded by the learned Principal Rent Controller, secunderabad. Landlord alone was examined as P. W. 1 and Ex. A-1 to A-12 were marked and it is brought to my notice that at the appellate stage Ex. A-13 to A-18 were marked. Likewise before the Rent Controller r. W. 1 to R. W. 3 were examined and exs. R-1 to R-22 were marked on behalf of the tenant. In C. M. P. No. 8459 of 1998 the prayer is to permit the landlord petitioner in the r. C. to add para 5 (a), which reads as hereunder:"the suit premises is given on lease to the respondent for the purpose of office locating his Transport Agency in front of two rooms and for residence of rear side of the premises. Emboldened by the order of the appellate authority, the respondent herein has now converted the suit premises into a Hotel called "sri Raghavendra Tiffins and Snacks centre" which contrary to lease agreement and is causing grave inconvenience and nuisance by discharging used water and other washing items etc. , into the rear side and is causing great nuisance to the occupants of the other portions in the same building and also to the neighborhood and the respondent has also committed such acts of waste as are likely impair materially the value and the utility of the building, and the building also is being damaged due to such acts of the respondent. Hence, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. " ( 7 ) LIKEWISE in C. M. P. No. 8458 of 1998, the relief is to receive certain documents, as additional evidence as prayed for. Hence, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. " ( 7 ) LIKEWISE in C. M. P. No. 8458 of 1998, the relief is to receive certain documents, as additional evidence as prayed for. Elaborate reasons had been given in the affidavit filed in support of the application. At para 6 of the counter, the tenant has stated as hereunder:"it is true that I used the front portion of the premises for non-residential purposes i. e. , office for transport business till 1996. As the business was not profitable I changed over the business into a Tiffin and Snacks Centre. After some time I stopped the said business too. I have been using the petition schedule premises for STD and cooldrinks after obtaining licences from the concerned authorities. " ( 8 ) NO doubt there is some controversy between the parties to the effect that since this ground constitutes a fresh cause of action the remedy available to the landlord is only to file afresh eviction petition. It is pertinent to note that while making the order of remand, before the Apex Court the only ground, which fell for consideration was the bona fide requirement and not any other ground Obviously the landlord was not interested in the other grounds, which he had raised in the R. C. in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the tribunals below. It is brought to my notice that in fact the landlord had given up these grounds while arguing the matter before the appellate authority. In view of the fact that the additional ground is raised taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration and also keeping in view the powers of the appellate authority, I am inclined to order both the applications in c. M. P. Nos. 8458 and 8459 of 1998 and permit the landlord to amend his R. C. instead of driving him to yet another litigation on the ground of fresh cause of action. 8458 and 8459 of 1998 and permit the landlord to amend his R. C. instead of driving him to yet another litigation on the ground of fresh cause of action. I am also satisfied that on the ground of subsequent events, just on the strength of the averments made in the affidavit and the stand taken in the counter affidavit by the respective parties, this ground cannot be decided and it is essential to adduce necessary oral evidence, to explain the circumstances and hence it would be just and reasonable to give opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence on both the bona fide requirement and the additional ground, now raised by way of amendment. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and also the scope and ambit of the remand order made by the Apex Court, the impugned order in the present civil revision petition is set aside allowing the applications aforesaid, and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority-Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad, for the purpose of affording an opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence on the ground of bona fide requirement and also the additional ground raised at the revisional stage. It is needless to say that the tenant also is permitted to file additional counter and also let in the necessary evidence, which he chooses to let-in in relation to these grounds. Equally the landlord is also permitted to let in further evidence, if any, in relation to the grounds specified supra. ( 10 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Inasmuch as this court is remitting the matter back, each party to bear their own costs.