HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007 Dated 31-12-2014 Between:
Motupalli Satyanarayana Murthy and others.
...Petitioners.
And:
Sarvasuddi Gandhi.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against order dated 6-12-2006 in R.C.A.No.31 of 2003 on the file of appellate authority-cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry whereunder order dated 31-10-2003 in R.C.C.No.29 of 1997 of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajhmundry, is reversed.
Revision petitioners herein are landlords and respondent herein is tenant of premises bearing No.5- 280, Main Road, Rajahmundry.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Landlady by name Subbayamma filed R.C.C.No.29 of 1997 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement and acts of waste. After filing of this R.C.C., landlady died and petitioners 2 to 6 are added as L.Rs. of the land lady and they continued the eviction proceedings on the same ground. Tenant resisted the claim of the landlord contending that requirement of premises is not bonafide and that no acts of waste are committed.
On these allegations and counter allegations, Rent Controller conducted enquiry, during which, two witnesses are examined and two documents are marked on behalf of landlord and two witnesses are examined and two documents are marked on behalf of tenant. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Rent Controller accepted the plea of bonafide requirement but not accepted plea of acts of waste and ordered eviction of the tenant by granting two months time. Aggrieved by the eviction order, tenant preferred appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority, on a reappraisal of evidence observed that the requirement of the landlords is not bonafide one and on that ground reversed findings of the trial court and allowed appeal setting aside the eviction order. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for petitioners submitted that learned Rent Controller has given cogent and convincing reasons for accepting the plea of bonafide requirement but the appellate authority reversed those findings without any legal or justifiable grounds. He further submitted that it is the specific case of the original landlady who originally filed eviction petition that she intends to commence kirana business with the help of her nephew who are added as L.Rs. on her death and when she sought premises for the business of these persons, discarding their request by the appellate authority on the ground that premises is not required for any additional accommodation is highly unwarranted.
He also submitted that first floor portion which is in the occupation revision petitioner is not at all suitable for kirana business and it is only fit to be used as a godown and when landlord produced evidence showing that they have no other non-residential buildings to carry out their proposed business, discarding their request without any justifiable ground is highly illegal and therefore, order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, advocate for respondent/tenant supported the order of appellate authority and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether orders of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
Though the landlords sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds, now we are only concerned with the ground of bonafide requirement. Original landlady specifically pleaded in her petition that she require schedule premises to commence kirana business to maintain herself and that she wants to do the said business with the assistance of her nephew.
From the evidence, it is clear that tenant is running a shoe mart in the schedule premises. It is also clear from the evidence that the schedule premises is on the main road and in a non-residential area. As seen from the evidence and also suggestions that are made to P.Ws.1 and 2, the contention of the tenant is that these petitioners have got non-residential building at a different place i.e., near Bharata Bommalu and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of bonafide requirement.
P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically denied that those shops do not belong to them and their mother is owner of those shops and they have no title or right over those shops. Except putting suggestions that petitioners have got non- residential building near Bharata Bommalu, Rajahmundry, the tenant has not produced any evidence to support the said plea. R.W.2 practically has no personal knowledge of any of the transactions and he came as witness because of his relationship with the tenant. When P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically deposed that they intend to start kirana business in the schedule premises, the respondent tenant failed to rebut the said evidence. With regard to the objection that the petitioners are in possession of other non-residential premises, the respondent tenant failed to prove the same. With regard to the Municipal shops that are in occupation of the petitioners, according to evidence on record, petitioners are doing vegetable business in those shops and there is a proposal of shifting of these shops to a far away place and for that reason they want to set up kirana business for their livelihood. From the evidence, it is clear that as per the compromise between the parties in O.S.No.693 of 1988, the tenant surrendered first floor of the building and it is being used as a godown.
Now the other objection of the tenant is that first floor is suitable to be used as shop room for kirana business and therefore, requirement of the petitioners is not bonafide. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the first floor is not at all useful for kirana business and it is only a small area which is fit to be used as godown.
Learned Rent Controller elaborately considered all these aspects and discarded the objections of the tenant and accepted the plea of bonafide requirement and ordered eviction. But the appellate judge on mere surmises and presumptions reversed these findings only on the ground that P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that they do not require this building as additional accommodation. There is a lot of distinction between acquiring a building as additional accommodation and requiring a building for the purpose of commencing business. The question of additional accommodation would arise if the premises in which a person conducting business is not sufficient to meet out his requirement. But here, admittedly, the petitioners are not conducting any business in the premises and they are using the first floor as a godown and conducting vegetable business in the municipal market which is not in this vicinity. It is not the case of the petitioner that this building is required for the very same vegetable business which they are now doing.
If their plea is for enlarging their vegetable business, then the question of additional accommodation would come into picture. But it is all together a new business. When the original landlady specifically pleaded that she wants to commence kirana business with the help of these petitioners for sustenance, the approach of the appellate authority is quite incorrect and it failed to distinguish between additional accommodation and accommodation for new business. When the evidence on record would clinchingly show that the intention of the petitioners is only for the purpose of commencing kirana business and when they are not doing that business any where in Rajahmundry town, disbelieving the bonafide requirement by the appellate authority on the sole ground that P.W.2 admitted in his cross–examination that they are not in need of additional accommodation is highly incorrect. In my view, appellate authority has not properly understood the concept of bonaifide requirement.
Learned Rent Controller elaborately discussed the evidence of both parties and held that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide and convincing.
On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that the appellate authority committed error in not accepting bonafide requirement of revision petitioners herein and its reason for not accepting is not on sound principles.
On a scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the view that the petitioners have clearly established that they require schedule premises for the proposed kirana business and therefore, they are entitled for eviction on the ground of bonaifde requirement.
For these reasons, the order of the appellate authority dated 6-12-2006 in R.C.A.No.31 of 2003 is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned Rent Controller is to be restored.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed by setting aside the order of the appellate authority and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 31-10-2003 in R.C.C.No.29 of 1997 is restored and the respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 31-12-2014.
Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007 Dated 31-12-2014