HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4461 OF 2006 DATE: 23.11.2010 BETWEEN: Sri Pydeti Raja Rama Mohana Gandhi .. Petitioner And Smt Katreddi Janaki Murthy ` .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4461 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in C.M.A.No.4 of 2005. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlady. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred as ‘tenant and landlady’. I have heard Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the landlady. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition may be stated as follows: Admittedly, the schedule premises belongs to the landlady, who is it’s owner. She let out the premises to the tenant for business purpose. The remaining portion of the building is used by the landlady to maintain lodge under the name and style of ‘Karuna Lodge’. The landlady filed RCC No.46 of 1982 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement for establishing show room under the name and style of ‘Gemini Tape Centre’. The said RCC was dismissed on merits on 04.10.1988. C.M.A.No.14 of 1988 preferred by the landlady against the said order was also dismissed on 24.02.1993. C.R.P.No.2027 of 1993 filed by the landlady to revise the orders in C.M.A.No.14 of 1988 was also dismissed on 27.08.1999. She filed S.L.P.No.18732 of 1999 before the Supreme Court and the said petition was also dismissed on 04.01.2000. Subsequently, some time after the above said litigation, the landlady filed RCC No. 14 of 2000 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of her bona fide requirement to extend the lodge. The learned Rent Controller basing on the evidence adduced before him on either side and in view of the categorical admission made by the tenant, who was examined as RW.1 recorded a finding that the landlady has been carrying on the lodge business under the name and style of ‘Karuna Lodge’ in the first, second and third floors of the schedule premises and the ground floor is very much essential for the purpose of parking the vehicles and to expand the lodge business. The landlady also took financial assistance from the bank to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of her lodge business and that the said bank filed O.S.No.46 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru on the ground that landlady failed to pay installments relating to the bank debt and taking into account of the said fact her requirement of expanding the lodge business was considered bona fide by the learned Rent Controller. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCC No.46 of 1982 filed by the landlady on the ground that she suppressed the material fact of earlier litigation which she lost up to the Supreme Court and on the premise that her claim is barred by res judicata. In C.M.A.No.14 of 1988 the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that she mentioned in RCC No.14 of 2000 that there is prolonged litigation between her and the tenant seeking eviction from the schedule premises which ultimately ended in favour of the tenant and she also mentioned the said fact in Ex.A.1 notice issued to the tenant before filing RCC No.14 of 2000. The requirement sought for by the landlady in the subsequent R.C.No.14 of 2000 is held to be different one i.e. for expanding her lodge business, whereas the initial requirement was to start business in the name and style of “Gemini Tape Centre” and according to the appellate authority, it is not hit by Section 16 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant in support of his contention that the landlady is guilty of suppression of material fact namely the earlier litigation and the said conduct amounts to fraud, relied upon a judgment in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS v JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that non disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud and he would submit that the landlady is not entitled for the relief of eviction against the tenant. The said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In this case, in para No.4 of RCC No.14 of 2000 filed by the landlady, she specifically mentioned that earlier there was a prolonged litigation between her and the tenant, wherein she sought eviction of the tenant from the schedule mentioned property and it went in favour of the tenant. The Supreme Court in the above referred decision has laid down that non disclosure of any material documents amounts to fraud, particularly, only when the said act is done with a view to obtain advantage. In the instant case, since the landlady disclosed about the earlier litigation between her and the tenant, it cannot be said that she is guilty of suppression of any material fact and thereby played fraud on the court with a view to have any advantage. The learned counsel for the tenant also relied upon the following decisions (1) SRI SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES v NARAYANA DAS[2] AND (2) TEXTILA TRADING SYNDICATE, SECUNDERABAD v G.LAKSHMINARAYANA[3] for the proposition that the decision as to whether the premises is required for bona fide requirement of the landlady since became final, cannot be reopened. The above referred two judgments are also not applicable to the facts of the present case since the requirement basing on which the tenant was sought to be evicted in RCC No.14 of 2000 is entirely different to the earlier one. The tenant himself who was examined as RW-1 admitted that he filed a suit against the landlady for recovery of amount under pressure to repay the amount. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the landlady, the rent controller also gave a positive finding that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide for expansion of her lodge business, but only dismissed the RCC No.14 of 2000 on the ground that it is barred by res judicata and the tenant had not filed cross objections against the said finding. Against the said order the landlady filed C.M.A. No.4 of 2005 and the learned appellate authority under the Rent Control Act rightly held that absolutely there is no challenge by the tenant to the concurrent finding that the requirement of landlady is bona fide. The conclusions reached by the learned appellate authority to arrive at the finding that the landlady is not guilty of suppression of any material fact and subsequent RCCNo.14 of 2000 filed by the landlord is not barred under Section 16 of the Rent Control Act and the principles of res judicata are based on evidence and reasoning. The requirement of the landlady in R.C.C.No.46 of 1982 is different to the one in the instant case and the decision in the earlier case does not attract the bar under Section 16 of the Act or the principles of Resjudicata, since the issues arose for determination in both the cases are not substantially the same. This Court therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act would not revise the judgment passed by the appellate authority under the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate the premises within a period of six months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 23.11.2010 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked b/o kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4461 OF 2006 DATE: 23.11.2010 [1] (1994) 1 SCC [2] 2005 ALT (5) 735 [3] 2002 ALD (1) 566