Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 340 (AP)

B. Ramarao v. Khadar Badashah

2024-03-11

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2024
ORDER : Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...pleased to set aside the orders dated 05.09.2023 in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 on the file for the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge Vizianagaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram and allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the orders of the lower courts and pass such order orders..." 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner herein is the tenant and Respondent is the land lord. It is submitted that the Respondent filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram against the petitioner under Section 10 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter "the Act, 1960") for eviction of the petitioner and after trail, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram was pleased to allow the RCC and directing the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property by judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018. Then, the petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-Cum-Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram vide Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 and the said Appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.09.2023, granting three months' time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant premises. 4. The Respondent filed vacate stay petition along with an affidavit on behalf of the Respondent wherein it is stated that the Respondent who is a land lord of the subject commercial complex had filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram seeking eviction of tenant from the subject petitioner schedule property on the ground of bonafide personal requirement to conduct his own business. After having trial and arguments, the trial Court was pleased to allow the application of the petitioner therein/respondent herein by its decree and judgment dated 01.10.2018 and ordered for eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner herein/tenant carried the judgment and decree in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 by way of appeal vide R.C.A. No. 1 of 2018. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner herein/tenant carried the judgment and decree in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 by way of appeal vide R.C.A. No. 1 of 2018. After hearing both the counsel the Hon'ble Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal vide decree and judgment dated 05.09.2023, against which the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RCC petition filed by the Respondent at Court below for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that his sons are the unemployees and he wants to settle them in business in his own premises for that the premises under occupation of the petitioner is suitable for carrying their own business. He further submits that the Respondent is the owner of the non-residential building situated at M.G. Road consisting of Ground and First floor. They are fourteen (14) shops in the ground floor and two (02) shops in the first floor. Admittedly, the petitioner is the lease holder of the shops in ground floor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondents herein is in occupation of one vacant shop at first floor of his own complex, as such he is not entitled for any direction for eviction of the petitioner as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, 1960. He further submits that the Respondent herein failed to prove the bonafide requirement of the shop of the petitioner. The respondent cannot get evict the petitioner as per his whims and fancies under the pretext of bonafide requirement of personal occupation and the respondent failed to establish the genuine bonafide requirement. Once the respondent herein failed to discharge his burden of proving bonafide requirement, the Respondent is not entitled for relief for eviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the orders passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018, dated 05.09.2023 are liable to be set aside, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander and others 1988:INSC:154 : (1988) 3 SCC 131 ". 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there are no valid grounds to challenge the orders passed by the Court below and present petition is filed only to delay the litigation to the possible extent. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there are no valid grounds to challenge the orders passed by the Court below and present petition is filed only to delay the litigation to the possible extent. The Respondent herein categorically stated before the Court below that the premises is required for his personal bonafide requirement. He further submits that after proving the bonafide requirement of the subject shop as per Section 10 of the Act, 1960, the appellate Court rightly confirmed the orders passed by the trial Court vide its orders dated 05.09.2023. He further submits that the present C.R.P is filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgment passed by the Rent Controller Appellate Authority without there being any valid grounds. He further submits that the Court below believed the bonafide requirements of the Respondent herein and ordered for eviction of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds in interfering with the judgment passed by the Court below. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, for which the learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon a ratio rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in Nallamani Konar and others vs. M.V.R.A. Soundararajan and others 2020 LawSuit (Mad) 505. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent and perused the material on record. 10. On perusal of the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 1 of 2018, dated 05.09.2023, the Court below rightly appreciated the contentions of the Respondent herein/land lord that being a land lord herein he has freedom to choose nature and place of business out of his complex, where he should transact business. Therefore, the petitioner cannot canvass/urge that the Respondent is in possession of a vacant shop in 1st floor for doing of his business and he is not entitled for eviction of the petitioner, on the guise of personal bonafide requirement is not valid and tenable, in view of the Right to Property and Right to Business under Article 300 (a) and under Article 19(1) is vested with the Respondent. Moreover, the bonafide requirement of land lord is ground for eviction of the tenant as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, 1960, for better understanding of the provision, it is extracted as under: 10. Moreover, the bonafide requirement of land lord is ground for eviction of the tenant as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, 1960, for better understanding of the provision, it is extracted as under: 10. Eviction of tenants: (3) (a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building: iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise: (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence: 11. It is further observed that it is a fact that the period of lease of the petitioner herein was expired long back and the petitioner did not choose to prove before the Court below that the petitioner is depositing rents into the account of the land lord. In view of the non-payment of rental amount after expiry of the period of lease, the petitioner is not entitled to continue as a tenant of the subject lease hold premises. 12. It is further observed that the land lord had terminated the lease of the appellant by way of legal notice in the year 2012 itself. It is also observed that the Revision Petitioner/tenant is also having an alternative accommodation for carrying of his business as per the evidence of RW-1, as such the appellant is not entitled for any relief more particularly as prayed for. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent herein failed to prove that he is in bonafide requirement of shop of the tenant/petitioner for doing his business since a vacant shop at first floor is still in his possession. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent herein failed to prove that he is in bonafide requirement of shop of the tenant/petitioner for doing his business since a vacant shop at first floor is still in his possession. As such, he is not entitled for eviction of the petitioner is not valid and untenable in view of the findings of the Court below that it is for the land lord Respondent to choose his premises for doing his business regarding suitability and marketability, in view of the Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, 1960 and also as per Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, once the Respondent sought for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises and the same was proved before the Court below in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in Nallamani Konar and others vs. M.V.R.A. Soundararajan and others, wherein it is held as follows: 17. The learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others v. M.Chinniyan and others reported in 2016:INSC:99 : 2016 (2) CTC 292, wherein it is stated as follows: "Jurisdiction of high Court-Concurrent findings of facts-scope of interference-rent control matters-re-appreciation of evidence-finding of fact recorded by authorities cannot be interfered unless perverse or has been arrived without consideration of material evidence-high Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to correctness or legality or propriety of impugned decision or order-high Court shall not exercise its power as appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess evidence for coming to different finding on facts-revisional power is not and cannot be equated with power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as Court of first appeal." 14. In view of my foregoing discussion and as per the ratio stated supra the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.