Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Ramachander Rao vs K. Dayanand on 22 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD258
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
2. This is a revision petition filed under Ssction 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by the land-lord questioning the concurrent orders of the two Courts below dismissing the eviction petition filed by him.
3. The eviction petition was filed on several grounds, namely (1) wilful default in payment of rent, (2) the tenant has committed acts of waste, (3) the tenant has committed nuisance by installing and running a lathe machine in the building, (4) that the premises is required bona fide for the purpose of his son's business of running a tailoring shop.
4. This case has had a long and chequered career. The Rent Controller negatived all the grounds pleaded by the land-lord and dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the appellate Court, however, ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord, who was carrying his own business in a rented premises, was obliged to vacate the same consequent on the orders of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.5208 of 91 dated 15-4-1991 and, therefore, he had a bona fide personal requirement. The said order of the appellate authority was, however, set aside by this Court in CRP No.3247 of 1991, on the ground that the appellate authority ignored the categorical admission of the land-lord in his evidence as PW1 that he has constructed two Mulgis in his own building at Ramkot and he wanted to use those two Mulgis for himself i.e., for the purpose of tailoring business of his sons, namely, Nareshkumar and Srinivas. This Court pointed out that if the land-lord had constructed the two Mulgis for the purpose of carrying on business after the filing of the rent control petition, the Court should take into account the subsequent event before deciding whether the land-lord's requirement is bona fide or not. Accordingly this Court set aside the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to consider the said admission made by PW1 in his evidence that he constructed two Mulgis, whether the bona fide requirement exists or not and dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the appellate Court considered the appeal afresh and dismissed it by the impugned order dated 31-3-1997. Though the remand by this Court was specifically on the question of bona fide requirement alone, the appellate Court unnecessarily considered the other grounds also and negatived all of them confirming the findings of the Rent Controller. On the question of bona fide requirement also, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the said requirement pleaded by the land-lord is not bona fide. Further the appellate Court, following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Vidya Bai v. Shakerlal, (FB), held that since the land-lord was possessed of the two non-residential Mulgis newly constructed by him, he is disentitled from seeking eviction of the respondent herein from the suit premises.
5. Sri C.P. Sarathy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought to assail the impugned order by contending that the lower appellate Court failed to properly follow the directions contained in the order of remand. I do not, however, find any force in the said submission. The eviction petition was filed on the footing that the suit premises is required for the purpose of carrying on business by the sons of the land-lord. Admittedly, after the filing of the eviction petition, the petitioner constructed two Mulgis in his building at Ramkot. In his evidence PW1 categorically stated that he wants to use those Mulgis for himself i.e., for the purpose of tailoring business of his sons, namely, Nareshkumar and Srinivas. It is not the case of the landlord at all that those two Mulgis newly constructed by him were not available to him for the said purpose nor was it the case that they were let out to others. Though the land-lord might have vacated the rented premises in his occupation at Sultan Bazar pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the two newly constructed Mulgis at Ramkot were available to him. The lower Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the alleged requirement of the petition schedule Mulgi for personal occupation is not bona fide. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the CRP and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.