LINGAIAH Vs. THUNGA SRIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. The landlord-tenant filed R.C.No. 320/99 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the tenant from the schedule mentioned premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground of the revision petitioner-tenant securing alternative accommodation. The learned III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, after recording the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, R.W.1 and R.W.2 and also Exs.P-1 to P-8, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord is entitled to the relief of eviction on both the grounds and aggrieved by the same,, the tenant had preferred R.A.No.442/2000 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, and the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15-6-2001 and aggrieved by the said order, the tenant had preferred the present C.R.P. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant.

(2.) Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had contended that though the ground raised is one of bona fide personal requirement, on the pleadings and also the evidence available on record, in fact, the ground is one of additional accommodation and not bona fide personal requirement, as such. The learned Counsel also had contended that the provision of law quoted by the landlord itself is not correct. The learned Counsel also had contended that the essentials to be satisfied in he case of additional accommodation will be different from that of the ground of bona fide personal requirement and bence, in this view of the matter, the approach of both the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record is not in proper perspective and is totally erroneous. The learned Counsel had pointed out several important aspects which go to show that by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord can be said to be bona fide. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that even on the aspect of alternative accommodation, the suitability or otherwise, of the premises also may have to be considered and this aspect was lost sight of by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel had taken me through the evidence available on record and had pointed out to several portions of the evidence of both P.W.I and R.W.I. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on M/s. Sana optics rep. By Partner Abdul Kareem v. Shyam Sunderbhargava and others, Omer Bin Salam Askari v. Dr. Yousuf and also M.K. Salpekar v. Sunil Kumar.

(3.) Sri K. Jayakumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-landlord had contended that the allegations, made in the petition and also the evidence, which had been recorded, overall may have to be considered while deciding the matter. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the pleadings and also the evidence of P.W.I and R.W.1 and especially the admission made by R.W.1 to the effect that he had also resided in the premises for sometime. The learned Counsel also and stated that the premises is only a residential premises and the mere fact that the tenant has been using it for a different purpose will not make the premises to loose its character as residential premises. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the basic amenities or otherwise can be adjusted at any point of time and the mere fact that for the present certain amenities are not available may not be of much consequence. Even otherwise, if the aspect of relative hardship is considered, the landlord, in fact, is a patient, who had sustained losses in the business and is in dire need of requirement of the premises in question and hence, the concurrent finding relating to bona fide personal requirement is well sustainable in law and does not require any interference by the revisional Court. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the alternative accommodation was secured by the tenant and the tenant will not face any problem at all, since it is only a laundry business. The learned Counsel had taken me through the contents of the impugned order at paragraph Nos. 8 to 12 in detail and also the order of the learned Rent Controller who in fact, had dealt both the grounds in detail and had submitted that inasmuch as the concurrent findings relating to facts had been recorded, such findings cannot be disturbed by the revisional Court under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience.