- (1.)The appellant is a landlord, who having lost from the High Court in a proceeding for eviction of tenant, has come up in appeal. The litigation has a chequered history. A brief resume of events would suffice.
(2.)The suit premises consists of a piece of land over which stands a wooden structure of the dimension of Exbt. 8. The eviction was sought for on the ground available under subsection (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter "the act" for short) , which provides inter alia for a non-residential building being directed to be vacated by the tenant and the landlord being put in possession of the same if the same was required by the landlord for the purpose of a business bona fide proposed to be commenced by the landlord and the landlord was not in possession of any other non-residential building. The proceedings were initiated before the controller. Before the Controller, the tenant not only denied the bona fide requirement of the landlord but also submitted that the tenant was holding on tenancy from the landlord only the ground on which the structure stands and the wooden structure placed on the ground was of his own ownership purchased by him from his predecessor tenant. The Controller found that so far as the tenancy is concerned, the subject matter thereof was not the ground alone but the ground along with the wooden structure standing thereon. The plea of the tenant that he was the owner of the structure having purchased it from his predecessor was found not proved and hence was discarded. However in the opinion of the Controller, the bona fide requirement of the landlord was not proved and, therefore, relief of eviction was not granted to the landlord.
(3.)The landlord preferred an appeal. The chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, who heard the appeal reversed the finding of the Controller on the issue as to bona fide requirement of the landlord and held that availability of the ground for eviction was proved. On the issue as to subject matter of tenancy, the learned Chief Judge confirmed the finding of the Controller upon an independent evaluation of the evidence and found that the ground along with the wooden structure was let out by the landlord to the tenant. The finding arrived at by the learned Chief Judge is based on appreciation of evidence including certain admissions made by the tenant in his deposition as also on the fact that the tenant had not produced the material evidence which should have been available to substantiate his plea taken in the written statement. The tenant preferred a revision in the High Court under section 22 of the Act. The High Court reversed the finding of the Appellate Court on the ground of bona fide requirement and negatived the same. The landlord preferred an appeal by special leave to this Court. This Court vide its order dated 31 7.1998 set aside the order of the High Court forming an opinion that while hearing a revision under Section 22 of the Act the manner in which the High Court had reappreciated the evidence like an Appellate court amounted to exceeding the re visional jurisdiction vesting in the High Court and, therefore, the finding of the High Court could not be sustained. This Court allowed the appeal and remanded the revision to the High Court for hearing and decision afresh.