Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 819 (AP)

Vagicheria Murali Krishna v. Palleboyina Seshaiah

2005-08-30

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) REVISION petitioner s petition seeking eviction of the respondent from a non- residential premises at Kavali was allowed by the Rent Controller but was dismissed by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the respondent. Hence this revision by the landlord. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts are, including the premises let out to respondent, petitioner is the owner of four non-residential premises. All of them are in the occupation of tenants. Revision petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that he requires it for his business he intends to carry on in fancy goods and stainless steelware. ( 3 ) THE case of the respondent is that the requirement, of the revision petitioner, of the building in his occupation is not bona fide and is only intended to seek enhancement in the rent. ( 4 ) AS per Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (for short the Act ) a landlord who is not occupying a non-residential building can seek eviction of his tenant for the purpose of the business which he intends to commence, provided that such intention of the landlord is, in the opinion of the Rent controller, a bona fide intention. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the building in the occupation of the respondent for the business he wants to commence? ( 6 ) THE fact that the revision petitioner apart from the shop leased out to the respondent, owns three other shops in the same town; is evident from the evidence of both the revision petitioner and the respondent. The evidence of the respondent as R. W. 1 shows that the three other shops of the revision petitioner are in the possession of tenants. The evidence on record also shows that a tenant of one of the premises filed a suit against the revision petitioner in o. S. No. 80 of 2003 and that, that suit, at the intervention of mediators, was compromised and that tenant was granted an extension of lease by the revision petitioner. The evidence on record also shows that a tenant of one of the premises filed a suit against the revision petitioner in o. S. No. 80 of 2003 and that, that suit, at the intervention of mediators, was compromised and that tenant was granted an extension of lease by the revision petitioner. The fact that revision petitioner granted an extension of lease to another tenant of his, by virtue of a compromise in a suit filed by the tenant in 2003, has no bearing on this petition filed in 2000, more so because it is well known that a landlord owning more than one non- residential premises has a right to choose the premises in which he intends to start his business. So if the landlord feels that a particular premises is more convenient or suitable for his starting a business, the tenant cannot be heard to say that that premises is not suitable for the proposed business of the landlord and that some other premises belonging to him is more suitable for his intended business. Since the evidence on record shows that from out of the four non- residential premises owned by the revision petitioner, three premises are in occupation of tenants in which they are carrying on cloth business, revision petitioner might have felt that the premises in possession of the respondent is more suitable for his intended business in fancy and stainless steelware. The learned Rent Controller, in fact, on the basis of the admission of the respondent as r. W. 1 that revision petitioner is intending to start business in stainless steelware held that the requirement of the revision petitioner is bona fide. But the appellate authority without giving any reasons for not agreeing with the said findings of the Rent Controller, came to a different conclusion. Here it should be kept in view that revision petitioner not producing the licences issued by the Sales tax Department and the local authority etc. , to carry on the business which he intends to commence, cannot be of any consequence for deciding this petition because, as per section 10 (5) (a) of the Act, he will have one month time to commence his new business. , to carry on the business which he intends to commence, cannot be of any consequence for deciding this petition because, as per section 10 (5) (a) of the Act, he will have one month time to commence his new business. If within one month, after obtaining possession from the respondent, the revision petitioner does not commence the business in fancy and stainless steelware, respondent, as per the said section, has a right to seek redelivery of possession of the property taken possession of from him. Permission or licence for commencing business from the concerned authority, can be obtained in less than one month. ( 7 ) ONE of the factors that seem to have weighed with the appellate authority for holding against the revision petitioner is his not giving a notice prior to his filing the petition seeking eviction of the revision petitioner, while observing that issuance of notice is not a condition precedent for filing a petition for eviction. When issuance of a notice prior to filing of the petition for eviction is not mandatory, petitioner not issuing a notice prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, is not and cannot be a ground for drawing any inference or non-suiting him on that ground. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, I hold that the revision petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the property leased out to the respondent for the purpose of his commencing the business in fancy and stainless steelware. The point is answered accordingly. ( 9 ) IN view of my finding on the point for consideration the revision is allowed and the order of the appellate authority is set aside and the orderof the rent controller is restored. Respondent shall deliver possession of the property in his possession to the petitioner on or before 30-11 -2005. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.