IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2148 OF 2011 Between: Smt Kareemunisabee @ Baipasha. …PETITIONER AND T.Noor Ahmed ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2148 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.04.2011, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree dated 30.08.2008, in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, were confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the respondent, and the respondent herein is the petitioner, before the Rent Control Court. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule mentioned property and he purchased the same under two registered sale deeds, dated 07.01.1993 and 21.04.1994 respectively. The respondent took the petition schedule shop on rent under unregistered Rent Deed, dated 15.07.1993, for running cool drink shop for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and paid advance of Rs.20,000/-, repayable after expiry of the lease period. The petitioner let out the shops situated on the eastern side and northern side to cycle shop owner and motorcycle mechanic respectively. The petitioner has been running a tea stall in Door No.42/313, N.R.Peta, which belongs to the Police Line Mosque for the last 23 years. The petitioner has five brothers and all of them purchased the property in the year 1997. The petitioner wanted to start a tea stall in the petition schedule building with the help of his brothers and sons and filed R.C.C.No.6 of 1997 against the respondent for eviction. The said R.C.C. was dismissed and an appeal in C.M.A.No.15 of 2000 was also dismissed on 03.05.2001. During the pendency of the above said proceedings, a brother of the petitioner became independent and running separate tea stall in Khadu Miah Mosque area. The other brothers of the petitioner also started petty shop in Door No.41/85 and another brother also started hotel business in Door No.41-87 and the said brothers are enjoying their properties by doing their business. Meanwhile, the elder son of the petitioner Khaja Miah could not complete his B.Com studies and began to assist the petitioner in running a hotel. As such, the petitioner requires the suit building to start new tea and samosa hotel for his son. The petitioner filed R.C.C. seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule shop. Further, the respondent did not pay rents during pendency of Rent Control Case from the year 1997 to 2001 and committed wilful default in payment of rents. Hence, the Rent Control Case. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and stating that the suit premises is required to start tea, samosa hotel by the son of the petitioner is not correct; that the alleged bona fide requirement story is created and invented to seek eviction of the respondent; that on earlier occasion also a story of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by brothers of petitioner was invented and as the petitioner failed in his attempts he invented the story of his son’s requirement; that the allegation that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents from 1997 to 2001, is not correct; that the petitioner consented to adjust the rents towards advance, which was retained by him; that there are two shop rooms to the west of the petition schedule building; that they were recently vacated and the same were let out to a mechanic shop; that there was another shop room to the North of the petition schedule shop building and the same was also let out to a cycle shop; that the husband and children of the petitioner are depending on her and she has no other property or income source, except the cool drink shop in the petition schedule building; that the family of the respondent are depending upon the income derived from out of the petition schedule shop and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Rent Control Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1. Whether the petitioner requires the petition schedule premises for his son to run tea and samosa stall and the requirement is bonafide? 2. Whether the respondent committed any default in payment of rents, if so, whether the said default is wilful default? 3. To what relief.” 6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.10 were got marked. 7. Learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the premises in question is required for bona fide use of the petitioner’s son and accordingly ordered eviction of the respondent. The contention of the petitioner /landlord with regard to wilful default in payment of rents by the respondent was negatived. Challenging the same, the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court confirmed the same vide the impugned order. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein / tenant contended that during the pendency of R.C.C. and appeal, two shops were vacant; that if really the petitioner wanted to get a tea stall business started with his son, he should not have let out the vacant premises to third parties; that this aspect of the case has not been considered by both the Courts below, which gave perverse and illegal finding; that the findings are not based upon the evidence available on record and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent herein / land lord contended that as on the date of filing of the Rent Control Case, the respondent was not in occupation of non-residential premises; that the premises in question is more suitable for starting a tea stall business; that it is for the respondent to choose a business which is feasible for commencing the business for his son; that both the Courts below upon considering the evidence on record gave concurrent findings with regard to that aspect and none of the findings is shown to be illegal or improper so as to call for interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 10. The Revisional powers of this Court, under Section 22 of the Andhara Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’), are truncated. Unless the findings suffer from illegality, irregularity or impropriety, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 11. The only point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petition schedule premises is required for bona fide requirement viz., for starting a tea stall business by the son of the petitioner/landlord. 12. An illegality is properly predicable of Medical defects only, and signifies that which is contrary to the principles of law as distinguished from mere rules of procedure. The word ‘irregularity’ in common parlance means and implies contrary to rule. In other words it is defined to be the want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceeding. Impropriety means not inconformity with requirement, rule or principle. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s son, who is examined as P.W.2, is assisting his father (P.W.1) in tea stall business in one of the premises, which is located by the side of the petition schedule property. It is also not in dispute that P.W.2 attained majority and is a married person and he has no business of his own except to assist his father. Therefore, for starting a tea stall business for the benefit of his son, R.C.C. is filed. 14. Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, reads as follows: “in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise. (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application ; or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlor d bona fide proposes to commence.” From the above provision it is clear that if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town, or Village, which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled, whether under this Act or otherwise, for the purpose of business, he can make an application for bona fide purpose to commence the business. 15. A specific plea has been taken by the petitioner to the effect that the two shops to the western side of the petition schedule building are vacated recently and the same were let out to a mechanic shop and there is another room which was vacant. During the pendency of the R.C.C, the same has been let out to a person who runs cycle shop. 16. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that his elder son, P.W.2, by name S.Khaja Miah, did not complete B.Com Course as he lost interest in studies and hence, he used to assist P.W.1 in his hotel business from 2004 onwards and therefore, he gained experience to do the business; that he performed marriage of his son and so, he requires the petition schedule shop for his son for starting tea-samosa business independently so that his family can live comfortably. In the cross-examination, he admitted that during the pendency of R.C.C.No.6 of 1997 one of the rooms, in which motor mechanic was maintaining mechanic shop, was vacant. Basing on the said admission, it is stated that the landlord can as well use that premises, which fell vacant after filing of the eviction petition. But, according to him, the petition schedule premises is more suitable than any other non-residential premises, as it was having road on two sides. 17. The evidence of P.W.2 would clearly go to show that the petition schedule premises is more suitable for hotel business and that he was unemployed and having experience in hotel business for the last four years prior to filing of the petition. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the petition schedule premises is located in a convenient and strategic place where a hotel business can be carried on. 18. Even R.W.1, who is a tenant, admitted that P.W.1 is running a tea-samosa business in the building and the suit schedule shop is facing to the main road. 19. Admittedly, two shops fell vacant after filing of the R.C.C., whereunder one shop was let out to a motor mechanic. It is for the landlord to choose a suitable non-residential premises for the purpose of carrying out a hotel business. It is not the case of the respondent that the premises which fell vacant is more suitable than the petition schedule premises for starting a hotel business. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petition schedule premises is not suitable for hotel business. The respondent can seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises, which he requires for bona fide purpose of starting a business for his son. The bona fide requirement of the premises for P.W.2 appears to be just and proper. It is not in dispute that P.W.2, the elder son of P.W.1, has got experience in running a tea stall. Therefore, both the Courts below accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The appreciation of evidence is not shown to be improper or illegal. The findings of both the Courts below are based on the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order, dated 11.04.2011, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a tenant since long time, a reasonable period of time can be granted to him to vacate the petition schedule premises so that he can get an alternate accommodation. Therefore, the petitioner shall vacate the petition schedule premises within a period of four months from today subject to giving an undertaking before the Executing Court within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order that he would vacate the premises. It is also made it clear that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he shall not alienate the petition schedule premises to any third parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JULY 18, 2011 YVL