Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 697 (AP)

Veluru Venkateswara Reddy v. Kota Venkatachalam

2005-08-01

P.S.NARAYANA

body2005
( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant in R. C. C. M. A. No. 89/94 on the file of Principal Senior Civil judge-Appellate Authority, Vijayawada, had preferred the present C. R. P. under section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (here-in-after, in short, referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). ( 2 ) HEARD Sri P. R. Prasad, the Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the Counsel representing the respondent. ( 3 ) SUBMISSIONS were made by both the counsel. The Counsel for Revision Petitioner is attacking the impugned Order on the ground that despite the remand, the evidence on record was not appreciated in proper perspective and on the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent is supporting the reason which had been recorded by the appellate Authority by pointing out to the relevant portions of the impugned Order. ( 4 ) THE respondent herein (here-in-after referred to as landlord for the purpose of convenience) filed R. C. C. No. 186/88 as against the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as tenant ). The case of the landlord, in nutshell, is that he is the owner of the petition schedule shop and the tenant has been paying monthly rent of Rs. 360/- excluding electricity consumption charges. The landlord is carrying on business in ayurvedic medicines under the name and style of Nagarjuna Ayurvedic Centre and by virtue of partition with his father, there is a bona fide need for the landlord to carry on his own business in the premises and he has been requesting the tenant to vacate the premises and issued a notice also, but however a reply was given with false and untenable allegations. The stand taken by the tenant is that originally the petition schedule premises was let-out on 15-9-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 160/- and the same was enhanced to Rs. 220/- and subsequent thereto to Rs. 280/-and ultimately to Rs. 360/- from 1 -4-1986 onwards. Further stand was taken that the landlord is the only son of his father and that the tenant has been carrying on business in Tobacco and cigarettes and the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. ( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, R. Ws. 1 and 2, and marked Exs. ( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, R. Ws. 1 and 2, and marked Exs. A-1 to A-11 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the landlord was unable to prove his bona fide need of the premises for his personal occupation and negatived the relief of eviction. The matter was carried by way of appeal and the appellate Authority relying upon Ex. A-12- the Deed of Partition, had reversed the order and the same was carried by way of C. R. P. and also to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 9069/2003 arising out of SLP (C) no. 21483/2002 and the Apex Court remanded the matter to the Appellate authority with certain directions. In pursuance of the same, the Appellate Authority had given opportunity to adduce further evidence and R. W. 1 was further examined and exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked. The Appellate authority framed the following points for consideration, as hereunder:- (1) Whetherthere was any oral partitionbetween P. Ws. 1 and 2 and in that partition, the petition schedule property fell to the share of P. W. 1 ? (2) Whether the landlord has got a bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for carrying on his business? (3) To what relief? on appreciation of evidence, the Appellate authority again ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred. ( 6 ) THE landlord was examined as P. W. 1 and his father was examined as P. W. 2 and exs. A-1 to A-11 were marked. R. W. 1 and r. W. 2 were examined. As already referred to supra, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition and the landlord preferred RCCMA No. 89/94 and the order was reversed on the strength of ex. A-12-the Certified Copy of the Partition deed, dated 27-9-1996. The matter was carried by way of revision and also to the apex Court wherein an order of remand was made. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 deposed that while he was studying, P. W. 2 obtained licence to run the business in the name of P. W. 1 but however p. W. 2 alone is doing business. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the son and the father. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 deposed that while he was studying, P. W. 2 obtained licence to run the business in the name of P. W. 1 but however p. W. 2 alone is doing business. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the son and the father. P. W. 1- the original owner of the schedule premises had let-out the premises to the tenant in the year 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 160/-, which had been enhanced ultimately to Rs. 360/- per month. It is not in serious controversy that p. W. 1 obtained licence under Exs. A-1 and a-2 to carry on business in Ayurvedic medicine and P. W. 2 carrying on business in the name of Ananda Ayurvedic Drug research Institute and Pharmacy. P. W. 1 has been doing business in the name of nagarjuna Ayurvedic Centre. The only stand taken by the tenant is that Ex. A-12 is brought into existence only forthe purpose of throwing him out. Though the learned Rent Controller disbelieved the oral partition, in Appeal an application was filed under Order XLI rule 27 of the C. P. C. , and Ex. A-12 was marked wherein the oral partition, dated 6-11-1986 had been specified in the document. In the said partition, the petition schedule property had fallen to the share of p. W. 1. The fact that from 1986 onwards till the finding of the eviction petition, the tenant had been paying rents in the name of P. W. 1 would definitely go to show that in fact there was partition in the year 1986, which was subsequently reduced to writing under ex. A-12. Exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked only to show that the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. The non-consideration of these documents by the Appellate Authority also was made a ground of attack and a request was made for further remand of the matter. Reliance was placed on Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) by LRs. , v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and others wherein the Apex Court at Para 8 held as hereunder:-"the decree of the trial Court is based on the landlords bona fide requirement of the accommodation. Reliance was placed on Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) by LRs. , v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and others wherein the Apex Court at Para 8 held as hereunder:-"the decree of the trial Court is based on the landlords bona fide requirement of the accommodation. In appeal, the question before the Court for adjudication was whether the trial Court was justified in passing the decree in favour of the landlords on the ground of bona fide need and the tenants obviously were within their rights to show that the need of the landlords was not genuine. The evidence produced in that direction would be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the question of need of landlords. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999)6 SCC 222 ), this Court has held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. In Deena Nath v. Pooran lal (2001) 5 SCC 705 this Court reiterated that bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. "reliance also was placed on M/s. Variety emporium v. V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina wherein it was held "in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of premises by landlord the subsequent events ought to be taken into account for the purpose of finding out whetherthe landlord still required the premises in possession of the tenant. Ibrahim Naina wherein it was held "in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of premises by landlord the subsequent events ought to be taken into account for the purpose of finding out whetherthe landlord still required the premises in possession of the tenant. In appropriate cases, the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the light of those events. " There cannot be any serious doubt or controversy relating to the propositions laid down in the decision referred to supra. The Appellate Authority while answering points 1 and 2, recorded clear findings that there are two different Firms being run by P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, because of lack of accommodation and in view of partition in the year 1986 which had been reduced into writing by virtue of Ex. A-12, the need of the landlord is bona fide and on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, the landlord is entitled to get the relief of eviction. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, R. Ws. 1 and 2 and also Exs. A-1 to A-11 marked before the Rent controller and also Ex. A-12 marked by the appellate Authority, by virtue of an application made under Order XLI Rule 27 of C. P. C. , and also Exs. B-1 to B-4 marked through R. W. 1 by the Appellate Authority after remand and in the light of the clear reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority, this Court is well satisfied that the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord had been established and hence, the landlord is entitled for the relief of eviction. Even otherwise, in view of the limitations while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the act inasmuch as no perversity in the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority had been shown, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Appellate authority, especially, on remand made by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed and the C. R. P. shall stand dismissed. The tenant is granted two months time to vacate the premises. No costs.