Decided on June 08,1982



- (1.) The Revisionists herein are the tenants. The respondent-landlord filed two petitions for eviction, R. C. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1976 on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the schedule premises for the proposed commencement of his business. The eviction petitions have been filed under sec. 10 (3) (b) (iii) and sec 10 (2) (I) of the A.P. Buildings (lease Rent and Eviction) control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). R. C. No. 2/76 briefly states: The petitioner (landlord) purchased the building Doors Nos. 2/48, 2/49, and 2/50 on the western side of the G.N. T. Road in Tagarapuvalasa under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1969. Actual possession was given in so far as D. No. 2/50 is convened and symbolic possession in respect of D. Nos. 2/48 and 2/49 which were occupied by the two revisionists herein was given after the purchase the tenants assured to pay the rents to the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the building for the purposes of his business and therefore a notice was caused to be issued on 1-6-69 to vacate the building. Since it was not vacated the petitioner (landlord) filed a suit O.S. No. 140/69 which was decreed and the appeal was dismissed but however during the pendency of the appeal. Tegarapuvalasa was included in the Bheemunipatnam municipality and therefore the provisions of the Rent control Act were made applicable. Consequently The decree obtained in the suit could not be executed since the respondents ( tenants ) did not give any notice to the petitioner as to what he should do with the rents and after the disposal of the suit when the petitioner was about to take action against the respondents under the Rent control Act, the respondents- tenants filed an application under sec. 8 of the rent control Act for allowing them to deposit the rents into Court, which was allowed this was with a view to get over the question of wilful default. The petitioner however submits that the respondent committed wilful default as they did not pay the rents wilfully. It is also stated that the schedule building is necessary for him for the purposes of his business and therefore the respondents are liable to be evicted.
(2.) In the counter it is stated that contrary to the agreement at the time of the purchase of the building between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner with a view to harass the respondents did not receive the rents and when the rents refused to be accepted and hence they had to file an application under sec. 8 which was allowed. It is further stated that the landlord is having a medical stores in his own building situated by the main road and the said building is sufficiently big enough for his business and the petition schedule premises is at a far off distance to the said medical shop and is not suitable for expansion of the land lords business. The allegation of wilful default is denied and there is no bona fide requirement of the petitioner to commence his business and therefore the petitions should be dismissed.
(3.) The Rent controller on an appreciation of evidence and in the light of the pleadings held that though the wilful default has not been established, the bona fides on the part of the landlord for the proposal to commence his business is established and therefore eviction was ordered. The appellate Court likewise confirmed. Hence these revisions.;

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