KOLISETTI VENKAIAH Vs. TADIKAMALLA SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1971-8-22
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 11,1971

KOLISETTI VENKAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
TADIKAMALLA SATYANARAYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an eviction petition filed under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenant is the petitioner and the respondent the landlord. The Rent Controller ordered eviction and it was confirmed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur. Hence this petition by the tenant.
(2.) The building in question is a shop building situated in Patnam Bazar (Guntur town) which is the main business locality of the Guntur town. The respondent purchased the shop building for a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 under sale deed, Ex. A-2 dated 5-10-1967. The petitioner has been occupying the hop as a tenant under the previous owner and carrying on his trade in biscuits etc. The respondent filed the eviction petition when the petitioner refused to vacate it when he was required to do so after the respondent purchased the building. Therefore, the eviction petition by the respondent.
(3.) The case of the respondent is that he has been carrying on his whole-sale business in sugar candy in another building of his own in a residential locality which is at a distance of over 200 years from the business Center. Of late, many sugar candy shops have come up in the main bazar where the suit building is situated. On that account, his business fell down. Therefore, he purchased the suit building for a sum of Rupees 15,000/- for the purpose of carrying on his sugar candy business in that responding. Therefore, the case of the respondent is that he requires the suit building for the purpose of his business which he is already carrying on in order to improve it. The case of the petitioner is that the building in which the respondent is now carrying on his business is also in a business locality and that building also is convenient for carrying on his business. The claim of the respondent for personal occupation is not bona fide. The respondent demanded a rent of Rs. 250.00 to which the petitioner did not agree and that is a real reason for filing the eviction petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.