THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2862 of 2009 Date: 07.08.2009 Between: Reddy Ramchandra Rao ….Petitioner and M/s.The Arya Vysya Ramalayam ….Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.N. SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: N.A. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: This is a tenant’s revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of eviction, dated 03.08.2005, passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.C.No.64 of 2001, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry in R.C.A.No.43 of 2005, by order dated 10.02.2009. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as the landlord and the tenant during the course of the revision. The landlord filed the above R.C.C under Section 10 of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the temple. It is stated in the R.C.C that the schedule premises was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- on a oral lease; that the petition schedule is 50 years old house and adjoining the petition schedule there is Ramalayam since 90 years, which is being run with the help and assistance of philanthropic persons and devotees; that due to the increase of number of vehicles, the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry demolished front portion of the temple on the western side for a width of 10 feet and due to the said demolition the size of the temple was considerably diminished; that thereafter, the Corporation again demolished some structure on the western side of the temple for construction of drainage and was also threatening to demolish a portion of the temple on the southern side in the road widening programme; that because of the road widening, there is no space for making pradakshinams around the temple, and therefore, the landlord and the committee members of the temple requested the tenant to vacate the petition schedule property, which is on the northern side of the said temple. Since the tenant failed to vacate the petition schedule property, the above R.C.C has been filed. The tenant contested the R.C.C by filing counter stating that the temple does not require the petition schedule for additional accommodation; that the eviction petition was filed with a view to get enhanced rents; that the temple premises was not effected in road widening, but the schedule premises was damaged to a major extent; that there was no proposal for road widening on the southern side of the temple; that he has been doing business in the petition schedule for more than 40 years by paying the rents regularly; and that his family is depending upon the said business and it will cause hardship to him if he is evicted from the schedule premises. In order to prove the case of the landlord, the President of the Ramalayam Committee was examined as P.W.1 and one of the devotees of the Ramalayam was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. P.W.1 filed his affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that at the time of reconstruction of the temple in 1992-93, the then President of the Committee, demanded the tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises, where the tenant sought for time. According to P.W.2 in the road widening western side portion of the temple was demolished by 10x30 feet, and that there is a proposal for road widening on the southern side also. If that is done, there would be no space for making pradakshinams. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that the devotees make pradakshinams within the iron grills and that the site used for pradakshinams by the devotees was not touched in the road widening. The tenant, who was allotted site at Auto Nagar, pleads that he requires the schedule premises for the purpose of taking the orders from the customers and for delivery of the finished goods. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence available on record, held that there was a road widening on the western side of the petition schedule and the steps situated in temple were demolished in two stages, and that notice was also given proposing to widen the road on the southern side of the temple and if that is implemented, room situate on the southern side of the temple will be demolished, which is now being used as store room and there will not be any other accommodation available in the temple for store room or for any other activities, and therefore, the landlord requires the petition schedule for personal occupation, and accordingly ordered for eviction of the tenant. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, after taking into consideration the entire material available on record, held that the tenant has already secured alternative accommodation for continuing his business in the said premises, which was accepted by the tenant, and that the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.2 also show that the flow of devotees in the said temple has been increasing from time to time, and therefore, the landlord requires the schedule premises for its bona fide purpose and accordingly confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the present revision petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant strenuously contends that the respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition for bona fide requirement and the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower Appellate Court ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that he secured alternative accommodation, which was not the ground on which eviction was sought for. Therefore, both the Courts below committed illegality in ordering eviction. I do not see any force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the said aspect of securing alternative accommodation was considered by both the Courts below to see the comparable hardship caused to the tenant in the event he is being evicted and accordingly held that no hardship would be caused to the tenant if eviction is ordered as sought for by the landlord and also held that the landlord bona fide requires the schedule premises for store room and other allied activities. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable in the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 07.08.2009 va