Decided on June 26,1992


Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)This C.R.P. arises out of the proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The tenant is the petitioner who has lost his cause before the appellate authority even'' though initially succeeded before the Prmiry Tribunal, namely, the Rent Controller. The pleas namely wilful default, acts of waste and bona fide requirement for personal occupation, raised by the respondent-landlord were rejected by the Rent Controller while the appellate authority has found favour with the respondent-landlord in so far as the issue relating to personal requirement is concerned. An appraisal of evidence on record and dealing the matter comprehensively on this aspect, the appellate tribunal has found as a finding of fact that the personal requirement for the expansion of the school by the respondent-landlord is a bona fide one and as such ordered the eviction of the petitioner herein.
(2.)Mr. Sri Raghuram, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, strenuously contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangaram v. N. Shankar Reddy, AIR 1989 SC 302 inasmuch as the building in which the respondent is presently running the (sic) different one than which is under the occupation of the petitioner-tenant, the embargo contained under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act comes into play and the prernises in question cannot be subjected to eviction proceedings. But the pleas to that effect was not raised by the petitioner-tenant and there is no issue framed there is no evidence led on that aspect. As such, I cannot accept the said contention at this stage. Alternatively Mr. P. Sri Raghuram contends that there was a duty cast upon the respondent-landlord to plead and prove that both the premises are one and the same and that they are under one roof and that failure to do the same' is fatal to the case of the respondent-landlord. I cannot countenance this contention 'as it is sufficient for the landlord to plead that even though he is in possession of the premises, he needs the premises under occupation of the tenant for expansion of his business activities. There is no obligation cast under the Act on .the part of thejandlord to plead andprove_ that he is in possession of the premises and i that the premises of whose eviction is sought is also a part of the same building under one roof etc. Theburden of pleadinf-and^proving the disentitleinent of the landlord under S. 10(3)(c) ofthe Act Lies on the tenant i.e. the petitioner herein. Having failed to do so, there is no ground for interference in this revision. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the premises in question since last several years, 1 grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. No costs.
(3.)Revision dismissed.

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