- (1.) The petitioner is the tenant in this Civil Revision Petition arising under the AP Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of tha petition schedule building bearing No. 7-4-7 situated on the eastern side road of Ramgaraju street in Vizianagaram. The landlady got the property by virtue of the registered settlement deed executed in her favour on 2-11-73 by her father. The eviction petition is filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for carrying on business with the assistance of her husband and it was alleged that the tenant was subletting portions of the building for higher rent and actually sublet to one Janab Shaik Nanna Saheb. This petition is resisted by the tenant that he was paying rent regularly and the suit premises was never sublet and the petitioner has 3 or 4 houses in Vizianagaram which are suitable for carrying on the business of the husband of the petitioner. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction holding that the premises was required bonafide for personal use and occupation of the petitioner and the respondent sublet the suit premises. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the Rent Controller is not justified in holding that the tenant sub-let the suit premises and on the ground of bonafide requirement confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and the order of eviction and also held that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsist. This revision petition is confined to two grounds viz. the relationship of landlord and tenant and the bcnafide requirement.
(2.) In so far cs the relationship of the landlord and tenant it cannot be contravened thai the settlement deed was executed in in her favour and pursuant to the same necessary attornment was done and therefore the petitioner cannot have any whisper of grievance regarding the same. Therefore, the issue whether the landlord has established the bonafide requirement survives for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no pleading at all with regard to the bonafide requirement and even otherwise the pleading lacks particulars and on merits the bcnefide requirement is not established and the findings given by the authorities below are devoid of evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that all the necessary particulars have been furnished in the pleadings and the reasons for self-occupation have been fully indicated in the petition for eviction and in any event the pleading in conjunction with evidence does not cause any prejudice and the bonafide requirement has been established beyond doubt and the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities should not be interfered with. It is necessary to advert to the particulars given in the petition for eviction regarding the bonafide requirement. In para lll(e) it is stated as follows:- "The Petitioner wishes bcnafide, to do businss with the assistance of her husbsnd and therefore she bonafide requires the building in the tenancy of the respondent for her personal use and occupation." In the notice given on 27-7-74 before filing the petition it is stated in the sante manner. The Landlady did not examine herself but her husband is examined. In chief examination it is stated by him as follows: "We wanted to open a shop dealing in business and towels in the petition schedule house. I am at present doing the same trade. We asked the respondent to vacate the building, as we want to do our business in that building." Jn the cross-examination it is stated as follows:- "I am having a cloth shop. I cannot tell the door No. The purpose of asking for eviction, is only to have the same for our personal occupation. It is not true to suggest that I have no necessity with the occupation of the said house and the petition was filed with an intention to harass the respondent."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement lacks particulars and on this score alone the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is substantial requirement with regard to the pleadings and no prejudice is caused to the tenant as there is sufficient evidence already on record and therefore the contention of the petitioner on this ground is untenable. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Tiruveedhi Ramanjaneyulu Vs. Araveti Venkata Subbamma (1980 (II) A L T'315) ln this case the landlady in the notice as well as in the eviction petition stated that she intends to do business without specifying any particular business but in the cross-examination the landlady stated that the premises is required for purpose of doing Mandi which was hitherto done by her son. On these facts, Jeevan Reedy J., held that the nature of the business proposed to be commenced has not been indicated either in the notice or in the eviction petition and as such the authorities erred in granting eviction. In Naganath vs Abdul Waheed (1881 (1) A P L J 62) it was held by Punnayya J., that the landlady has not specifically pleaded in the eviction petition the nature of the business which was proposed to be commenced and in view of the same the eviction cannot be acceded to. In the case cited the nature of the business proposed to be started and particulars have not been stated except mentioning that the premises is required for starting business. It is only in the cross-examination it was stated that the premises is required to start crockery and shamiyana business in the premises for the purpose of doing business by her son. In these circumstances Punnayya. J, concurring with the view oKJeevan Reddy, J, in 1980 (II) ALT 315 held that in the absence of indication of the nature of business in the notice, eviction petition and the chief-examination the concurrent finding of the Tribunals suffered from the taint of unreasonableness resulting in miscarriage of justice. In Vishnu Prasad Bhatt vs. K Narayana Rao (3) 1982 (I) A P L J 223 in the eviction petition it was stated that the petitioner belongs to the trading community and the premises was purchased to carry on their business in the entire building and they are not owning any non-residential building for the purpose of business which they have been carrying on. Differing from the view taken by Jeevan Reddy, and Punnayya JJ., it was held by Choudary J., that the lack of particulars or non-mention of nature of business in the pleadings cannot constitute the foundation for dismissing the eviction petition. In K.L Setty vs, M L K Setty (4)1982 (1) A P L J 345 it is held by Ramachandra Raju, J., that each case has to be decided on its own facts and if the tenant is not able to show any prejudice the denial of relief of eviction is not justified merely on the ground that the business which the landlord proposed to commence was not specified in the petition for eviction. Adverting to the decisions of Jeevan Reddy, and Punnayya JJ, it was held by Ramachandra Raju, J, that in the context of holding that bonafide requirement was not proved the factum of absence of indication of the nature of business in the eviction petition also caused prejudice to the tenant and it should not be understood that as a general rule that an eviction petition can be dismissed for the failure on the part of the landlord to specify particular business which he proposes to commence. In C R P 2242 and C R P 2243/8! dated 8-6-1982 Seetharam Reddy, J , held as follows adverting to the above three judgments:- "Since the majority that is three out of five judges have held that particulars of proposed business and also the preference as to why the particular business are required have to be brought out in the petition itself and any contravention will be fatal to the petition, I follow the majority view and reiterate what has already been stated that the particularisation of the business without being vague or equivocal must be stated in the petition itself and it is this ingredient that in essence contributes towards the formation of satisfactory opinion by the Controller. Since this ingredient is woefully lacking in this petition, the petition deserves to be dismissed". In Daulat Ram vs. Giridhari Lal (5) A I R 1980 P & H 131 it was held that even if all the ingredients are not specified in the eviction application but both the parties lead on the assumption as if the same has been pleaded, the tenant cannot be allowed to have been taken by surprise. I agree with the neat exposition made by Ramachandra Rsju, J,, regarding the amplitude of the decisions of Punnayya, Jeevan Reddy and Choudary, JJ. Both Jeevan Reddy and Punnayya JJ., adverted to the evidence and ultimately held that bonafide requirement is not satisfied and in that context highlighted the absence of indication of nature of business in the eviction petition. As observed by Ramachandra Raju, J. the facts in the decision of Choudary, J did not warrant the discussion and opinion on this issue. In the decision rendered by Choudary J., it was stated in the eviction petition that it was proposed to carry on the business hither to carried on previously and as such there is sufficient indication in the eviction petition and the provocation for ratiocination is not founded en facts. Sitharam Reddy, J agreed with the view taken by Jeevan Reddy, J and Punnayya J and the accent appears to be more on arithmetics. I agree with the view of Ramachandra Raju, J that the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration and the absence of mention of the nature of business in the eviction petition is not fatal. The criteria should be whether the respondent is not able to project his case effectively or taken by surprise and prejudice is caused. In a situation where evidence is adduced by both sides being fully aware of mutual versions the insistence upon this technicality in the pleading is academic and unrealistic. The object of the pleading is to alert the other side regarding the case sought to be projected and apprise the court or tribunal the broad factures of the stand by either side. The pleading is a facet of fair play and natural justice as the otherside should not be taken by surprise and the object is to define the terms at the earliest opportunity. The religious adherence to technical approach to classic style of pleadings, evidence and other procedure should not be stretched to the point of stumbling block or unduly lengthy process in the course of furnishing the judicial end product or rendering substantial justice. The ultimate aim is to cater to the need of litigent public crying out for accelerated adjudication and the technical pleas should not be permitted to be unduly stretched and render the proceedings abortive. The guideline should be whether any prejudice is caused to either party. 1 he inadequacy of particulars of pleading is not fatal and the pleading or averment in the eviction petition is in the nature of outilne or frame work and the moulding of details can be done by evidence or otherwise. It is sufficient if the eviction petition contains the broad features or grounds for eviction to enable the tenant to withstand the onslaught with necessary ammunition.;