HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5283 of 2010 Date: August 04, 2011 Between: M.A. Razak … Petitioner And S. Lingappa … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5283 of 2010 O R D E R: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.2010 passed in R.A. No.44 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Appellate Court has confirmed the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Rent Controller in R.C. No.265 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner’s specific case is that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises and that the respondent is the tenant paying monthly rent of Rs.1,385/- excluding the electricity charges and property tax. In fact, the father of the respondent had obtained the petition schedule premises on rent on 01.6.1992 and deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards security deposit which is refundable. The respondent started doing business in eggs. Rental deeds were executed on 01.6.1992 and subsequently on 02.6.2004. The petitioner’s case is that he became old and that his son obtained Diploma in Computers and that he is an unemployee and that the schedule mulgi and the adjacent mulgi are required for running Internet Cafe. Accordingly, the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 23.4.2007 requesting the respondent to vacate the schedule mulgi. As the respondent failed to comply with the request, he filed the rent control case under Section 10 (3)(iii)(a)(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the respondent. 4. The respondent’s brief case is that he is the tenant of the schedule premises and that as per the rental agreement the rent is being enhanced every year and that the present rent is Rs.1,426/- exclusive of electricity charges. The respondent specifically denied that the schedule premises is required by the petitioner to commence Internet Café by his son. The respondent’s further case is that the son of the petitioner had completed Diploma in Computers on 15.5.1999 and that after a long gap of 8 or 9 years now the petitioner says that he is in need of the mulgi to start Internet Cafe by his son. It is also his contention that there is another mulgi vacant in the possession of the petitioner’s son since about one year. If at all the petitioner wants to commence the business of his son, they can commence the business in that vacant mulgi. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1, his son was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P-5 were marked. The respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and another witness R.W.2 was examined on his behalf and no documents have been filed on behalf of the respondent. 6. The learned Rent Control, taking into consideration the specific plea of the petitioner that his son required the mulgi under the occupation of the respondent and the adjoining mulgi, which is in the occupation of the respondent in R.C. No.266 of 2007 for running the business of Internet Café by the elder son and that the petitioner has proved that they bona fidely required the mulgi, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred the appeal, but was unsuccessful. Challenging the order of the Appellate Court, this revision has been filed. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court has not evaluated the evidence independently and just confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller. It is also his submission that when another mulgi is vacant since about one year, it is clear that the petitioner does not require the mulgi bona fidely. It is also his contention that when the son of the petitioner obtained Diploma in Computers in 1999, the question of bona fide requirement after a period of about 8 years does not arise. His main submission is that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence and their findings are perverse. 8. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the petitioner’s son, who was examined as P.W.2 had passed Diploma in Computers and that he is an unemployee and that he required the mulgi for running Internet Café and that there is no other mulgi vacant for their business. The mulgi which is said to be vacant is not a mulgi, but a small portion beneath the staircase, which is being used as study room by the younger son of the petitioner and that room is not suitable to start Internet Cafe. It is also his submission that R.W.1 himself admitted that the landlord is using the mulgi under staircase as a storeroom. 9. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Deep Chandra J u n e ja v . Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) through L.Rs.[1] and Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co.[2], it is submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and that the Courts have no concern to dictate landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. 10. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner requires the schedule mulgi for his bona fide requirement? 11. As far as the other mulgi that is said to be vacant since about one year is concerned, the tenant who is examined as R.W.1 himself admitted that the landlord utilizes the mulgi under the staircase as a storeroom. It is clear that the contention other room is vacant since one year and that the landlord can use that room is not correct. Therefore it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that the son of the petitioner had completed Diploma in Computers in 1999 and that the petitioner has filed this petition in 2007 and that for about 8 years the petitioner’s son did not think about his business of Internet Café, and therefore, it cannot be said that the mulgi is bona fidely required by the petitioner. It may be the fact that the son of the petitioner might have completed his Diploma in Computers in 1999, it is the fact that the petitioner has filed this application in 2007. Merely because the son of the petitioner had completed the Diploma in Computers in 1999, it does not mean that he should start the business immediately. Merely because he has come forward to start business of Internet Café after about 8 years after his completing Diploma in Computers, it does not mean that the present requirement is not bona fide. 12. Admittedly, the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s son is in need of the mulgi in the occupation of the respondent and as well as adjoining mulgi which is in the occupation of the respondent in R.C. No.266 of 2007 for the business of Internet Café. How many rooms are required and in what manner the son of the petitioner should commence his business is up to the choice of the landlord and his son and a tenant or the Rent Controller cannot dictate terms to the landlord. 13. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that the landlord has proved that he required the mulgi and also the adjoining mulgi for running the business of Internet Café by his son P.W.2. R.W.2, who is examined on behalf of R.W.1 also categorically deposed that there is residential as well as commercial premises surrounding the petition schedule premises. In Deep Chandra Juneja v . Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) through L.Rs. (1 supra) the landlady sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that she had a large family and she required additional accommodation to provide proper and comfortable living rooms, kitchens and bath rooms for her children. The tenant had pleaded that the landlady did not need more accommodation because other tenants who were living in the building had vacated and she again let those out for new tenants for higher rents. The Apex Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. On facts, it was found that the tenant has failed to establish that the landlady had let out some portion of the house to the new tenants on higher rents in that case. 14. I n Ragavendra Kumar v . Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2 supra) the Apex Court while dealing with a case where the landlady sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, observed that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. 15. I have also gone through the judgment of the Appellate Court. It is not correct to say that the Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The Appellate Court has referred to the admissions made by R.W.1 and other documentary evidence such as Ex.B.5 and has also considered rival contentions and the decisions cited. 16. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. There is nothing on record to say that the findings of the Appellate Court are perverse. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that after disposal of the rent appeal, the tenant was evicted from the premises by executing the E.P. filed by the landlord, but subsequently after filing C.R.P. and after obtaining interim stay orders from this Court, the tenant again had re-entered into the premises and is continuing in the premises. The learned counsel for the tenant sought six months time to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant is directed to vacate the premises by 16th November 2011. Since more than three months time is granted at his request, I hope and trust that the tenant shall vacate the premises as agreed by 16th November 2011 without creating any trouble. 17. In view of the above discussion, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Subject to the condition of payment of all the arrears of rents on or before 05th September 2011 and the rents up to 15th November 2011 on or before 10th October 2011, the petitioner/tenant is permitted to continue in the premises till 15th November 2011 and shall vacate the premises and handover the same on 16th November 2011 and if the tenant fails to vacate the premises on 16th November, the landlord is at liberty to execute this order. It is for the Rent Controller to issue fresh warrant of eviction in the E.P. already filed by the landlord or in the fresh E.P. as the case may be, in the facts and circumstances of the case. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: August 04, 2011. BSB [1] 2008 (4) ALD 130 (SC) [2] (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 679