CRP/544/2007 of Motupalli Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs Sarvasuddi Gandhi, on 31 December 2014

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007--Dated 31122014

Between:

Motupalli Satyanarayana Murthy and others.

...Petitioners.

And:

Sarvasuddi Gandhi.

…Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007ORDER:

This revision is against order dated 6-12-2006 inR.C.A.No.31 of 2003 on the file of appellate authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry whereunderorder dated 31-10-2003 in R.C.C.No.29 of 1997 of RentController-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajhmundry,is reversed.

Revision petitioners herein are landlords andrespondent 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.29of 1997 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground ofbonafide requirement and acts of waste. After filing of thisR.C.C., landlady died and petitioners 2 to 6 are added asL.Rs. of the land lady and they continued the evictionproceedings on the same ground. Tenant resisted theclaim of the landlord contending that requirement ofpremises is not bonafide and that no acts of waste arecommitted.

On these allegations and counter allegations, RentController conducted enquiry, during which, two witnessesare examined and two documents are marked on behalf of landlord and two witnesses are examined and twodocuments are marked on behalf of tenant. On an overallconsideration of oral and documentary evidence, RentController accepted the plea of bonafide requirement butnot accepted plea of acts of waste and ordered eviction ofthe tenant by granting two months time. Aggrieved by theeviction order, tenant preferred appeal to the appellateauthority and the appellate authority, on a reappraisal ofevidence observed that the requirement of the landlords isnot bonafide one and on that ground reversed findings ofthe trial court and allowed appeal setting aside theeviction order. Aggrieved by the same, present revision ispreferred.

Heard both sides.

Advocate for petitioners submitted that learned RentController has given cogent and convincing reasons foraccepting the plea of bonafide requirement but theappellate authority reversed those findings without anylegal or justifiable grounds. He further submitted that it isthe specific case of the original landlady who originallyfiled eviction petition that she intends to commence kiranabusiness with the help of her nephew who are added asL.Rs. on her death and when she sought premises for thebusiness of these persons, discarding their request by theappellate authority on the ground that premises is notrequired for any additional accommodation is highlyunwarranted.

He also submitted that first floor portion which is inthe occupation revision petitioner is not at all suitable forkirana business and it is only fit to be used as a godownand when landlord produced evidence showing that theyhave no other non-residential buildings to carry out theirproposed business, discarding their request without anyjustifiable ground is highly illegal and therefore, order ofthe appellate authority is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, advocate for respondent/tenant supported the order of appellate authority and contendedthat there are no grounds to interfere with the findings ofthe appellate authority.

Now the point that would arise for my considerationin this revision is whether orders of the courts below arelegal, correct and proper?

POINT:

Though the landlords sought eviction of the tenanton two grounds, now we are only concerned with theground of bonafide requirement. Original landladyspecifically pleaded in her petition that she requireschedule premises to commence kirana business tomaintain herself and that she wants to do the saidbusiness with the assistance of her nephew.

From the evidence, it is clear that tenant is running ashoe mart in the schedule premises. It is also clear fromthe evidence that the schedule premises is on the mainroad and in a non-residential area. As seen from theevidence and also suggestions that are made to P.Ws.1and 2, the contention of the tenant is that these petitionershave got non-residential building at a different place i.e.,near Bharata Bommalu and therefore, the petitioners arenot entitled for the relief of bonafide requirement.

P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically denied that those shopsdo not belong to them and their mother is owner of thoseshops 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 thesaid plea. R.W.2 practically has no personal knowledgeof any of the transactions and he came as witnessbecause of his relationship with the tenant. When P.Ws.1and 2 specifically deposed that they intend to start kiranabusiness in the schedule premises, the respondent tenantfailed to rebut the said evidence. With regard to theobjection that the petitioners are in possession of other non-residential premises, the respondent tenant failed toprove the same. With regard to the Municipal shops thatare in occupation of the petitioners, according to evidenceon record, petitioners are doing vegetable business inthose shops and there is a proposal of shifting of theseshops to a far away place and for that reason they want toset up kirana business for their livelihood. From theevidence, it is clear that as per the compromise betweenthe parties in O.S.No.693 of 1988, the tenant surrenderedfirst floor of the building and it is being used as a godown.

Now the other objection of the tenant is that first flooris suitable to be used as shop room for kirana businessand therefore, requirement of the petitioners is notbonafide. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clearthat the first floor is not at all useful for kirana businessand it is only a small area which is fit to be used asgodown.

Learned Rent Controller elaborately considered allthese aspects and discarded the objections of the tenantand accepted the plea of bonafide requirement andordered eviction. But the appellate judge on meresurmises and presumptions reversed these findings onlyon the ground that P.W.2 admitted in his evidence thatthey do not require this building as additionalaccommodation. There is a lot of distinction betweenacquiring a building as additional accommodation andrequiring a building for the purpose of commencingbusiness. The question of additional accommodationwould arise if the premises in which a person conductingbusiness is not sufficient to meet out his requirement. Buthere, admittedly, the petitioners are not conducting anybusiness in the premises and they are using the first flooras a godown and conducting vegetable business in themunicipal market which is not in this vicinity. It is not thecase of the petitioner that this building is required for thevery same vegetable business which they are now doing.

Conclusion

If their plea is for enlarging their vegetable business, thenthe question of additional accommodation would comeinto picture. But it is all together a new business. Whenthe original landlady specifically pleaded that she wants tocommence kirana business with the help of thesepetitioners for sustenance, the approach of the appellateauthority is quite incorrect and it failed to distinguishbetween additional accommodation and accommodationfor new business. When the evidence on record wouldclinchingly show that the intention of the petitioners is onlyfor the purpose of commencing kirana business and whenthey are not doing that business any where inRajahmundry town, disbelieving the bonafide requirementby the appellate authority on the sole ground that P.W.2admitted in his cross–examination that they are not inneed of additional accommodation is highly incorrect. Inmy view, appellate authority has not properly understoodthe concept of bonaifide requirement.

Learned Rent Controller elaborately discussed theevidence of both parties and held that the requirement ofthe landlord is bonafide and convincing.

On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that theappellate authority committed error in not acceptingbonafide requirement of revision petitioners herein and itsreason for not accepting is not on sound principles.

On a scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the view thatthe petitioners have clearly established that they requireschedule premises for the proposed kirana business andtherefore, they are entitled for eviction on the ground ofbonaifde requirement.

For these reasons, the order of the appellateauthority dated 6-12-2006 in R.C.A.No.31 of2003 is liable to be set aside and the order of the learnedRent Controller is to be restored.

Accordingly, this revision is allowed by setting asidethe order of the appellate authority and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 31-10-2003 inR.C.C.No.29 of 1997 is restored and the respondent isgranted three months time to vacate the premises.

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, theMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall standdismissed.

_______________________

JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

--Dated 31122014.Dvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

Dvs

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.544 OF 2007--Dated 31122014