NAZEER HUSSAIN Vs. FAROOQ ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) zeer Hussain, the revision petitioner/landlord, aggrieved by the reversing order made in RA No.37/94 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad/Appellate authority had preferred the present civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act". The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "landlord" filed RC No. 191/84 which was renumbered as RC No. 1748/86 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement and acts of waste. The learned Rent Controller, after recording evidence had arrived at a conclusion that the personal requirement of the landlord is bona fide, but however, negatived the ground relating to acts of waste and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as "tenant" preferred R.A. No.37/94 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad/Appellate Authority and the Appellant Authority had allowed the Appeal and had set aside the order of eviction made by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred the present civil revision petition.

(2.) Sri Ashok Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing the landlord made the following submissions. The Counsel would maintain that the landlord is claiming property under oral gift which had been well established by both oral and documentary evidence and hence the question of one of the co-owners claiming relief of eviction does not arise in the facts of the case. Even otherwise, the Counsel would maintain that a co-owner can definitely pray for the relief of eviction. The learned Counsel had pointed out to the factual aspects and had submitted that the Appellant Authority had definitely erred in negativing the relief of eviction on the ground that the landlord is running business along with his brother and hence the landlord cannot claim the relief of eviction. This approach of the Appellate Authority is an erroneous approach. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the decretal order made in OS No. 1061/84 on compromise memo and the judgment made therein and ultimately the learned Counsel commented that when the alleged other co-owners or other co-sharers had entered into an amicable settlement which had resulted in a decree, the tenant is in no way concerned. The Counsel also had commented about the conduct of the tenant in this regard. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, the Counsel representing the tenant made elaborate submissions commencing from the respective pleadings of the parties, the nature of evidence let in by the parties and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well. The Counsel would maintain that in the absence of a plea in the pleading relating to oral gift, any amount of evidence on record would be of no consequence since such evidence is without a plea and hence on this ground alone the landlord is bound to fail. The learned Counsel also further had pointed out that RC No. 191/84 was initially filed which was renumbered as RC No. 1748/86 and the documents relied upon by the landlord are subsequent thereto and these are all documents which came into existence during the pendency of the litigation and hence the documentary evidence is of no help to the landlord. The Counsel also had pointed out that even if the compromise in OS.No. 1061/84 is taken into consideration, in the light of Section 10(3)(iii)(b) first proviso of the Act, definitely the eviction petition is premature and on this ground also the landlord is bound to fail. The Counsel also would maintain that the fact that the landlord is running business along with his brother is not in controversy and in view of the same, definitely the ground of bona fide personal requirement is not available to the landlord. The Counsel also had placed reliance on certain decision in this regard.