T.S.Anand - (1.) Heard Sri T.S. Anand, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.
(2.) First respondent, who is landlord filed R.C.C.No. 5 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif-Cum-Rent Control Tribunal, Tuni under Section 10(3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') as against the revision petitioner - tenant, who is first respondent in the said R.C.C. and Respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 2 and 3 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 1999. Respondents 2 and 3 are brothers and the landlord is the son of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the petition schedule property is their joint family property and hence the landlord is one of the co-owners of the schedule property along with respondents 2 and 3.
(3.) The averments in short made in RC.C.No. 5 of 1999 are as under: "The 1st respondent is a month to month tenant in the petition schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- p.m. The first respondent is carrying on business under the name and style of Aruna Fancy Corner in the schedule property. The 3rd respondent is carrying business in one of the shops belonging to the joint family, which is situated to the north of the petition schedule property. The father of the petitioner is going to retire in one or two years from the railways. The family of the petitioner is a trading family having experience in the business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner is not interested in pursuing his further studies after intermediate, wanted to have a business at Tuni, where the petitioner is having a residential house. The petitioner is not in occupation of any non-residential building in Tuni. The petition schedule property is most suitable for business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner has no other avocation Hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the 1st respondent from the petition schedule property as the same is bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal occupation for carrying on business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner got issued a notice to 1st respondent who sent reply with false allegations. The daughters of Nagaraju relinquished these rights in the schedule property in pursuance of the oral family arrangements. Hence, the petition may be allowed for eviction of the 1st respondent from the petition schedule property as the same is required, bona fide for personal occupation of the petitioner for carrying business".;