THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2692 & 2829 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these two Civil Revision Petitions is intrinsically connected, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. These two revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in R.C.A.No.7 of 2009 modifying the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Avanigadda in R.C.C.No.2 of 2004; and the order dated 13.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.558 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.7 of 2009 respectively. Kadiyala Sivarama Krishna Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) filed the above R.C.C seeking eviction of Y.Madhu Sudhan Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) from the petition schedule property stating that though he had let out a Madras tiled roof house to the tenant for residential purpose and not for any business purpose, the tenant started carpentry business and caused damage to the entire property and also occupied A.C.C sheet roofed room, the vacant site, constructed a cattle shed therein and used the same for tethering the cattle, without his consent. Further, when the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the house as he intended to start timber depot and get his daughter’s marriage in the petition schedule premises, the tenant filed O.S.No.421 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda seeking the relief of injunction with an oblique motive to continue in the schedule property under the shelter of orders of injunction. Hence, the landlord filed the above R.C.C seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement, wilful default of payment of rents, committing acts of waste, indulged in committing nuisance and subletting the premises in violation of oral agreement of tenacny. The tenant contested the R.C.C by filing a counter, wherein he admitted that there was an oral lease and as per the said lease, the landlord had agreed to lease out the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- initially, but later the same was increased to Rs.1,000/- per month and that he was paying the rents regularly and he has not committed any wilful default. It is stated when the landlord tried to evict him forcibly, he filed O.S.No.421 of 2003 and obtained temporary injunction and that on filing such suit, the landlord and his authorised agent purposefully avoided to receive the rents. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice seeking information about the bank accounts etc., for depositing the rents. As there was no reply from the landlord, he was paying the rents by Money Order, and therefore, there is no wilful default as alleged by the landlord. Further, there are no acts of waste and nuisance as alleged by the landlord and they were purposefully attributed to get him evicted from the schedule property. There is no bona fide requirement for the landlord to evict him from the schedule premises. The landlord is a permanent resident of Mulkalapalli Village and acquired substantiate properties in the said village and he is doing business and got constructed a terraced building in the said village. Based on the above pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. That the tenant had committed default in payment of rents? 2. Whether there is a bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for personal use by the petitioner? 3. Whether the respondent had converted the petition schedule premises for business in violation of the oral lease agreement. Thus the value and usage of the petition schedule property got diminished? 4. Whether the respondent had indulged in nuisance and wastage and the respondent had raised construction without the permission of the petitioner? 5. Whether the petitioner had sublet the premises in violation of the oral agreement of tenancy. On behalf of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.45. On behalf of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and got examined one more witness as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.29. On considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller answered Point Nos.2 and 5 in favour of the landlord and negatived point Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenant, by order dated 28.01.2009. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.01.2009, the tenant preferred the above appeal. It was contended that the landlord neither filed any cross objections nor cross appeal against the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on negating Point Nos.1, 3 and 4. The lower appellate Court, after considering the evidence and also the pleadings of the landlord with regard to the bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises, dismissed the appeal by order dated 03.06.2011, holding that mere owning of the properties by the landlord at Mulkalapalli Village and doing business there, cannot be a ground to presume that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and that when it was specifically pleaded by the landlord that he want to come back to his native village-Challpalli and resume his business, it is not for the tenant to prevent the landlord to come back to his native village and occupy the schedule premises both for his residence and also business and accordingly answered that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and directed the tenant to vacate the entire schedule premises within 30 days from the date of that order. Questioning the same, the tenant preferred C.R.P.No.2692 of 2011. On filing I.A.No.558 of 2011 in the above appeal by the tenant seeking to grant stay of operation of the eviction order dated 03.06.2011, the lower appellate Court, while ordering notice to the landlord, stayed the eviction till 27.07.2011. Questioning the same, the landlord preferred C.R.P.No.2829 of 2011. The claim of the landlord for bona fide requirement of shifting his residence from Mulkalapalli Village to Challapalli Village has been consistent in the pleadings as well as in the evidence. Therefore, both the Courts below concurrently held that the landlord has no other house at Challaplli except the schedule property for his residence and also for business purpose and that though he is a resident of Challapalli, he set up business at Mulkalapalli Village and acquired certain properties there and now wanted to shift to his native village. In that view of the matter, it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord nor it is open for him to say that there is no need for the landlord to shift his residence from Mulkalapalli Village to his native village Challapalli. Therefore, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, both the Courts below rightly held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, and the same do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. In the circumstances, C.R.P.No.2692 of 2011 is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted time till the end of October, 2011 for vacating the schedule property and handing over the vacant possession of the same to the landlord, subject to condition of his filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he will vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the landlord on or before 31.10.2011 and shall continue to pay the rents due every month till the date of vacation. In view of the order passed in C.R.P.No.2692 of 2011, no further orders are necessary in C.R.P.No.2829 of 2011 and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 22.07.2011 va