HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.9 & 10 OF 2008 DATE:28-04-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.9 OF 2008 BETWEEN Badiredla Balayya …Petitioner AND Grandhi Veerabhadra Rao …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.10 OF 2008 BETWEEN Gudla Sreema Murthy & Others …Petitioners AND Grandhi Veerabhadra Rao & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.9 & 10 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) by the tenants are filed feeling aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act in R.C.A.No.8 of 2000 and 9 of 2000, both dated 29.10.2007 whereby the appeals preferred by the landlord-respondent herein were allowed setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry made in R.C.C.No.36 and 35 of 1003 respectively, filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants-petitioners herein under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(iii)(a) and Section 12(a) of the Act. During the course of the order, the parties herein will be referred to as the ‘landlord’ and ‘tenants’ for convenience. The landlord is the owner of the premises bearing Door No.6-5-29, situated at Innispeta, Rajahmundry Town, which is an old building and two portions therein were leased out to the tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.170/- and Rs.30/- respectively, payable by the first of every succeeding month. The tenant in R.C.C.No.36 of 1993 committed default in payment of rent from 3.7.1988, whereas, the tenant in R.C.C.No.35 of 1993 not only committed default in payment of rent from the inception but also unauthorisedly sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent in the said R.C.C., who is carrying on motorcycle repairing works in the said premises. It is the case of the landlord that his two sons are carrying on manufacturing and sale of coffee powder at their residential house, and that they requires the schedule building to demolish it and construct a new building for shifting their coffee powder business in the said premises and that they do not own any other non-residential building in the town and that in spite of their notice, dated 30.11.1992 and 13.11.1992 calling upon the tenants to vacate the premises, they did not vacate and handover the possession of the schedule premises. Hence, the R.C.Cs. seeking eviction of the tenants. The tenants filed counters denying the averments, but admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tenant in R.C.C.No.36 of 1993 pleaded that originally his father took the premises for residential and non-residential purpose and that the landlord cannot maintain the R.C.C. for eviction as the provisions under the Act have no application and denied of his committing the default in payment of rent. According to him, there are no arrears either prior to filing of the application or subsequently. He also denied the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord contending that the landlord does not have the business of manufacturing and sale of coffee power as alleged and that it is only a sheer invention with an oblique motive to evict him and lease out the premises to the third parties for higher rents. It is also alleged that the landlord is in possession of several other non-residential premises, one such premises is known as ‘Bangarraju building’ and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the R.C.C. Similar plea was taken by the tenant in the other case i.e. R.C.C.No.35 of 1993, however, the second respondent therein was set ex parte. By two separate judgments, dated 22.02.2000, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the R.C.Cs. The Rent Controller, on the point ‘whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents as alleged by the petitioner’, held that the tenants have not committed any willful default in payment of rents. On the point ‘whether the building is in dilapidated condition’, it was answered that the building is old and is in dilapidated condition, and that two portions out of four portions were already collapsed and the remaining two are in occupation of the tenants. With regard to the requirement of the premises by the landlord for his family business, it was held that the landlord failed to establish that the quality, size and suitability of the portion fell vacant in Bangarraju building about 4 years back is not suitable to open the coffee power shop by him, which is by the side of the schedule building, and therefore, he failed to establish the grounds for non- suitability of the above said portion to open his coffee powder business, and therefore, the requirement of the premises by the landlord is not bona fide one, and holding, so dismissed both the R.C.Cs. On appeals being filed by the landlord, the lower appellate authority framed only one point viz. ‘whether the landlord established the grounds for eviction of the tenants for the bona fide requirement of the schedule premises for establishing coffee power business of the landlord and his family members or not’. Reanalyzing the entire evidence, the lower appellate authority held that the said Bangarraju building consists of five portions in the ground floor and the first floor got ten rooms and in the ground floor one portion is vacant for the last four years, which facts has not been disputed by P.W.1-landlord. The said Bangarraju building is behind the schedule premises, which is on the main road at Innispeta. The location of the petition schedule premises on the main road is the main factor to say that it is more suitable for the prosperous coffee powder manufacturing and selling business. It is elicited from the evidence of P.W.1-landlord that in the portions of Bangarraju building, the tenants are carrying on their own businesses, besides residing there itself, which discloses that the said building is being used for composite purpose and the said premises of Bangaraju building is not an exclusive commercial purpose building. The landlord’s residential building is in a lane known as ‘Bangarraju building’, and the residential building of the landlord is on the backside of the petition schedule premises. In the evidence of R.W.1, there is an admission that Bangarraju building is a residential building. Considering the said evidence, the lower appellate authority held that the said Bangarraju building is a composite purpose building but not exclusively a non-residential building and accordingly allowed both the appeals setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court in Boorugu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Company[1998(3) ALT 26] categorically held that ‘mere owning a non-residential building by the landlord other than the demised non-residential building, is not enough to non-suit him in evicting the tenant, and the aspects of quality, size and suiability of the building owned by the landlord are relevant considerations that can be taken note while deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The evidence adduced by the parties and as admitted by R.W.1 and the suggestions made to P.W.1 clearly discloses that the entire family members of the landlord are doing the business of converting the coffee seeds into powder and by mixing chicory they are packing and selling the powder not only in Rajahmundry town but also various other towns, which itself shows that the landlord requires the premises for non-residential purpose. Further the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the building is in dilapidated condition and two out of four portions were already collapsed has not been rebutted nor any appeal is filed questioning the said finding recorded. The findings recorded by the lower appellate authority are purely on appreciation of entire evidence in proper perspective. Further when the building is an old one and is in dilapidated condition, the requirement of the premises by the landlord for demolition and for construction of a new building in its place is a bona fide requirement. In view of the same, the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in ordering eviction of the tenants does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. Both the revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, the tenants are granted three months’ time for vacating and handing over the possession of the premises to the landlord subject to payment of arrears of rent and continuing to pay the monthly rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 28, 2010 Tsr.