IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 1 3 0 OF 2009. Between: C.A. Devassy, s/o C.O. Antony, aged about: 62 years, Occupation: Business, Prop. Vijayon Kirana & General Stores, Shop No. 2, Plot No.2, Rudranagar, Mandabad, Secunderabad. … Revision Petitioner V/s. Smt. Bharathamma, w/o S. Narayana, aged about: 58 years, 0ccupation: Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 47, Inventure, Saraswathy Nagar, Tirumalagir, Secunderabad … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Sri K. Mohan Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5 1 3 0 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the judgment dated 07-09-2009 passed in R.A.No. 274 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 26-10-2007 passed in RC.No. 135 of 2005 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, directing the tenant to vacate the petition-schedule premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the land within two months from the date of the judgment, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as petitioner (landlord) and respondent (tenant). 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the landlord and absolute owner of property bearing Plot No.2, situated at Mangabad, Rudranagar, Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad had filed petition under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from Mulgi No.2 of the petition schedule premises, which was let out to the respondent-tenant under written deed for carrying on business of Kirana and General Stores in the year 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- with enhancement clause and the respondent-tenant periodically enhanced the rent from time to time and paying rent of Rs.1771/- per month exclusive of electricity charges and that the petitioner- landlord requested the respondent-tenant to vacate the petition- schedule property, as it was required for her younger son to carry on business of Medical Stores, as her son got qualified for commencing the said business by obtaining B.Pharmacy Certificate. Initially the respondent has agreed for the said proposal and sought an year’s time for procuring alternative accommodation so as to deliver possession and that the petitioner-landlord got drafted agreement to that effect at the instance of the respondent-tenant and suddenly the respondent- tenant backed out and made lame excuses and avoided to execute the agreement as promised for the reasons best known to the respondent-tenant and that the respondent-tenant filed a false suit against the petitioner-landlord making all false allegation and that the petitioner-landlord made illegal attempts of dispossessing the respondent-tenant before XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and obtained ex-parte interim orders in IA.No.1080 of 2005 in OS.No. 1350 of 2005 and the petitioner-landlord filed counter denying the averments made thereunder and the petitioner-landlord averred that the petition schedule mulgi is bonafidely required for her third son to carry on business in Medical Stores and the petitioner-landlord does not have any other property of her own in twin cities and that in spite of severe requests to the respondent-tenant, the respondent- tenant failed to deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Hence, the petition. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-tenant filed his counter admitting that the petitioner-landlord is the owner of plot No.2, situated at Mandabad, Rudranagar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad and further admitted that the petitioner let-out mulgi No.2 to him under written lease deed in the year 1981 on a monthly rent of s.200/- and contended that he is carrying on Kirana and General Stores business under the name and style of “Vijyan Kirana and General Stores” and further admitted that the present rent of Rs.1771/- exclusive of electricity charges and that he is occupying three mulgies and subsequently on the request of the petitioner, delivered the possession of other mulgies bu7t denied that the petitioner has requested the respondent to vacate the premises as she requires the same for her younger son to carry on business in medical stores and agreed to vacate the petition-schedule shop but sought one year time for procuring alternative arrangement and further denied that he backed to and made lame excuses and avoided to execute the agreement and filed false suit, OS.No. 1350 of 2005 along with I.A.No. 1050 of 2005 and contended that the petitioner filed counter in I.A.No. 1050 of 2005 in OS.No. 4350 of 2005 that she will not dispossess him except by due process of law and the said petition was disposed of by recording the said undertaking and further denied that the petitioner bonafidely requires the petition-schedule property for her third son for carrying on medical stores business and specifically contended that the petitioner’s husband had asked him to come to his place, when he had gone, the petitioner and hr husband and few other persons started threatening him and asked him to increase the rent extraordinarily and when he refused they threatened to evict him with the help of muscle men and that the petitioner’s husband came and collected the rents till September 2005 but stopped coming from October and the rent of October and November were paid by demand drafts and that the petitioner owns house bearing No. 16-64, Srinivas, Venkataraopet consists of residential accommodation and one shutter which was leased out and Plot No.6 Dwarka Nagar, Bhoodevi Nagar consisting or residential accommodation and one shutter which is not let out and H.No. 13-94, Lothkunta, Secunderabad, consisting of residential and commercial groundfloor and Plot No.47, Saraswathinagar, I-Phase, Lothkunta where the petitioner is residing and the two shops wherein business is being carried on by the petitioner’s husband and Plot No.2, Rudra Road, Lothkunta, apart from the petition-schedule property, there are two other mulgies occupied by two other tenants and there is an open space for an additional mulgies and on the rear side of residential accommodation, two portions are available and the cause shown by the petitioner-landlord is a ruse cause to evict him to get higher rent and that a distance o 50 meters there are about seven medical shops existing and no documentary evidence regarding particulars of setting-up of medical shop has been filed and the petitioner also filed eviction case against the adjacent tenant one Muthyalu, which is pending, as such their requirement is not bonafide but with oblique motive to evict him to get enhanced rents and deposits and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 5. On the basis of the above rival contentions, the Principal Rent Controller framed the following point for consideration: Whether the petitioner bonafidely requires the petition schedule property for carrying on business by her third son ? 6. To substantiate the case, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1. On behalf of the respondent, RW-1 was examined and marked Ex.R1. 7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Principal Rent Controller held that in the absence of any evidence the presumption of bonafide requirement stands rebutted which in turn probablise the contention of the respondent that the petitioner filed the petition with oblique motive to evict the respondent without any bonafide requirement and accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the landlord under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from Mulgi No.2 of the petition schedule premises, which was let out to the respondent-tenant under written deed for carrying on business of Kirana and General Stores in the year 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- with enhancement clause and the respondent-tenant periodically enhanced the rent from time to time and paying rent of Rs.1771/- per month exclusive of electricity charges. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-landlord preferred RA.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, contending that the trial court dismissed the eviction petition without appreciating the material facts of the case and also without considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 as well in proper perspective and gave more weightage to the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.R1 and dismissed the petition. The Principal Rent Controller had taken umbrage under two decisions, which are not relevant to the facts in issue in the present case and erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove her bonafide requirement. The Principal Rent Controller did not consider the evidence of PW2, who is third son of the appellant, who gave evidence that under Ex.P1 he obtained certificate for commencing pharmacy business and that he got experience in the said business. The Rent Controller placed more reliance on the contention of the respondent that appellant is owner of many properties and that she does not require the petition schedule premises for carrying on business by her third son. The Rent Controller failed to consider that when specific pleading was taken by the respondent with regard to a particular aspect then it is the duty of the respondent to prove the same and it is not the duty of the appellant to do so but erred in dismissing the petition. The Rent Controller gave a wrong finding that there is no oral or documentary evidence showing the bonafide requirement of petition schedule mulgi by the appellant for carrying on business by PW2. The order under appeal suffers serious infirmities and cannot be allowed to sustain and it is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, on hearing both sides and after perusing the written arguments framed the following points for determination: i) Whether the personal requirement pleaded by the appellant is bonafide ? ii) Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? iii) To what relief ? 10. On re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also considering the written arguments submitted by both sides, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, set aside the order dated 26-10- 2007 passed in RC.No.135 of 2005 by the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, on the ground that the respondent-tenant could not place before the trial court any evidence to show that the appellant-landlord is owning and possessing any other non-residential mulgi and that various other members of her family are owning some other properties, it cannot be said that her personal requirement is not bonafide and moreover there is no evidence available on record to show that she is in possession of any non-residential mulgi of her own and which is vacant, as on the date of filing of the petition or any other subsequent date. Therefore, the personal requirement pleaded by the appellant-landlord is bonafide and allowed R.A.No. 274 of 2007 by judgment dated 07-9-2009. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 07-9-2009 passed in R.A.No. 274 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the respondent-tenant filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 12. At the hearing, this court suggested the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that sufficient time will be granted to the revision petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant also fairly concedes and sought reasonable time to vacate the petition schedule premises and filed an undertaking of the revision petitioner-tenant, wherein the revision petitioner has undertaken that he will not commit any default and shall handover possession to the respondent-landlord after expiry of the said period and pay the rents regularly till then. 13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the reversing judgment of the appellate court, this court is of the opinion to direct the revision petitioner-to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 30-06-2010 and shall hand over the petition schedule premises to the respondent-landlord, failing which the respondent-landlord is at liberty to get vacate the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises by due process of law and if necessary seek police-aid. The affidavit-cum-undertaking furnished by the revision petitioner- tenant may be placed as part of the record. However, the revision petitioner is further directed that under any circumstances, he shall not renew his request hereafter seeking any further extension of time to vacate the petition schedule premises. 15. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 06-11-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 51 3 0 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No. 21 Date: 06-11-2009 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43.