THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 3805 of 2004 O R D E R: This civil revision petition is directed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 being aggrieved by the order and decree made in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2001 dated 28.1.2004 on the file of learned appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry, whereunder the order and decree made in R.C.C. No. 86 of 1993 dated 1.3.2001 on the file of learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundy, passing a decree of eviction, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Petitioner is the landlord and respondents are the tenants. About more than 60 years back, the building of petitioner- landlord bearing Door No. 10-15-22, situated at Fortgate, Rajahmundry was let out to respondents (1st respondent since died). Respondents took the schedule premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on hotel business. The building is situated in a very busy commercial locality and abutting the main road. The tenancy was oral and monthly one and the rent fixed was Rs.225/- per month, payable by the end of each month. Respondent No.1 was doing hotel business in the schedule premises in the name and style “Venus Hotel”. Abutting the front room of the schedule premises, petitioner-landlord is carrying on cloth matching business, under the name and style “Sri Venkateswara Matching Centre”. It is the case of the petitioner that he is carrying on business with a turnover of more than Rs.8.00 lakhs per year. The room in which he is carrying on business is very small and insufficient and he requires further accommodation for expansion of his business. Therefore, he demanded the respondents to vacate the schedule premises for his additional and bona fide requirement. But, the respondents did not respond to the demand made by the petitioner. Hence, he filed the R.C.C. The respondents filed counter admitting landlord and tenant relationship between themselves and the petitioner. However, they stated that the petitioner had filed the R.C.C. with a mala fide intention of inducting fresh tenant at exorbitant rent since the schedule premises is located at the heart of the town. The petitioner got good number of shops i.e. nearly 10 in Rajahmundry and he is having several shops at Vijayawada and Secunderabad. The relative hardship is more to the respondents, if they are evicted from the schedule premises, than the petitioner. Hence, the R.C.C. is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed by the learned Rent Controller, for determination: 1. Whether the petitioner required the schedule premises for his bona fide requirement of additional accommodation and the respondents are liable for eviction? 2. To what relief? In support of the claim of petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On the other hand, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of respondents. Ex.X-1 was marked through RW-2, on behalf of respondents. After a detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner is in bona fide requirement of additional accommodation for extending his business and the relative hardship is more to the landlord than the tenants, if the respondents-tenants are not evicted from the schedule premises and, therefore, allowed the R.C.C., directing respondents to vacate the schedule premises within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents-tenants preferred R.C.A. 11 of 2001 before the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (learned Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry. The learned appellate authority, holding that the learned Rent Controller erred in coming to the conclusion that the landlord is in bona fide requirement of the schedule premises, allowed the R.C.A. and set aside the order and decree passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.C. No. 86 of 1993 dated 1.3.2001. Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed by the learned appellate authority under the Rent Control Act, the petitioner-landlord filed this civil revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the landlord requires the schedule premises for bona fide requirement, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents-tenants to vacate the schedule premises and handover vacant possession to the landlord. In this case, though it is proved that the petitioner-landlord bona fide required the schedule premises for expanding the business and the learned Rent Controller has rightly held so, the appellate authority, on an erroneous consideration of the matter, went into so many other aspects, which are unwarranted to decide the matter under the Rent Control Act, and set aside the well reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority failed to take into consideration that the petitioner-landlord was facing hardship and inconvenience in running his business in a small room and that he invariably required additional accommodation for expansion of his business. Further, the appellate authority erred in law in coming to the conclusion that respondents 2 to 7 are dependent on hotel business, which is not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore, the order and decree dated 28.1.2004 passed by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents- tenants contended that the petitioner-landlord absolutely failed to establish that he requires the schedule premises for bona fide requirement. He wanted to evict the respondents only to induct new tenant at an exorbitant rent. The respondents are eking out livelihood by carrying on hotel business in the schedule premises for the last so many years and the relative hardship, if they are evicted from the schedule premises, is more to the respondents than the petitioner- landlord. Considering all these aspects the learned appellate authority has rightly set aside the order and decree passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.C. No. 86 of 1993 dated 1.3.2001, by an order dated 28.1.2004, and the said order passed by the learned appellate authority needs no interference by this Court in this civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. In this case, there is no dispute as to landlord-tenants relationship between petitioner and respondents respectively. In as much as the petitioner-landlord seeks the schedule premises by evicting the respondents-tenants on the ground that he requires the said premises for expansion of his business, what is to be necessarily seen is whether the petitioner has established his bona fide requirement in order to claim eviction of the respondents-tenants from the schedule premises. In support of his claim, petitioner-landlord himself was examined as PW-1 and got examined PWs 2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-7. PW-2 is the son of PW-1 and PW-3 is an independent witness. Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the evidence of PW- 3 also established the fact that petitioner-landlord requires additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding his cloth matching business. It is also admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is running matching business in a small shop adjoining the schedule premises. The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is having several other properties in Rajahmundry as well as other places like Vijayawada, Secunderabad etc. and they are running hotel business in the schedule premises since a long time and, therefore, petitioner can as well set up his business at those places instead of seeking to vacate them from the schedule premises. The said contention has no force, in as much as it is up to the landlord to choose a particular place for establishing or expanding his business. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the schedule premises is very congenial and convenient for expanding his cloth matching business. In such circumstances, respondents-tenants cannot expect petitioner- landlord to choose other place for expanding his business and to leave the schedule premises to them. Though it is alleged by respondents that the petitioner is seeking their eviction from the schedule premises only to induct other tenant at an exorbitant rent, no evidence is adduced by them in support of the said allegation. Further, petitioner has taken a plea that there is no truth in the contention of the respondents that all of them are eking out their livelihood by running hotel business in the schedule premises. RW-1 admitted in cross-examination that 3rd respondent is residing at Seshayametta, Rajahmundry but not in the schedule premises. As per Ex.A-5, 4th respondent is working as Lecturer in RIC, Kakinada. Even the evidence of RW-1 goes to show that 4th respondent is a retired ITI Instructor at Kakinada College. The learned Rent Controller also observed that no documentary proof is filed by respondents to show that 4th respondent retired from service and doing hotel business. May be, this is a case where the tenants are on lease for the last more than 60 years as of now. However, two generations have gone by and the petitioner-landlord sought for eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement for expansion of his business of matching centre. May be, on the southern side a hair saloon shop was also got vacated, but that itself does not mean that the schedule premises is not required by the petitioner-landlord for expansion of his business. It is also observed by the learned Rent Controller that except RW-1, none of the respondents or their children gave evidence that they are residing in the schedule premises while doing hotel business. The respondents did not file any voter identity card, ration card etc. to show that either of them is residing in the schedule premises and doing hotel business. Therefore, there is every force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that R-6 alone is doing hotel business in the schedule premises. Merely because petitioner-landlord has some properties in Vijayawada, Secunderabad etc., it does not mean that he cannot seek eviction of the respondents from the schedule premises, who are squatting over the property for the last more than 60 years, particularly for his personal and bona fide requirements. Further, the respondents have not substantiated their contention, by adducing any oral or documentary evidence, that they cannot get any other accommodation for the purpose of setting up hotel business. Whereas, the petitioner-landlord has already set up business of matching centre in the name and style ‘Venkateswara Matching Centre’ abutting the suit schedule property. The petitioner-landlord is 80 years old and the intention of respondents-tenants seems to be to knock away the property, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that there are other properties available to the petitioner-landlord, it is for the landlord to decide where to do his business and whether it is convenient for him for the purpose of expansion of business etc. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord where to conduct the business. In fact, for all these 60 years, respondents-tenants have not tried to have any other place for the purpose of setting up their business. In this regard, it is apt to refer a decision of the apex Court in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan[1], wherein it was held: “The landlady is the best judge of her residential requirement. She has a complete freedom in the matter. This is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlady how, and in what manner, she should live or to prescribe for her a residential standard of their own”. For all the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned appellate authority under the Rent Control Act that hardship would be caused to respondents-tenants if they are evicted from the schedule premises cannot be said to be based on any evidence available on record. The appellate authority has gone into various aspects which are unwarranted in a matter of this nature, where the petitioner-landlord has to prove that he requires the schedule premises for his personal and bona fide requirements. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner-landlord has amply proved that he requires the schedule premises for bona fide requirement of expansion of his business. Therefore, the order and decree passed by the learned appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (learned Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2001 dated 28.1.2004 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the order and decree made by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.C. No. 86 of 1993 dated 1.3.2001 is confirmed. The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. However, respondents-tenants are granted three months’ time for vacating and delivering the vacant possession to the petitioner-landlord. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date:7-4-2010. MVB. [1] (1996) 5 SCC 353