EVICTION OF TENANT FOR PERSONAL OCCUPATION DISMISSED= Notwithstanding the bona fide nature of the requirement of the owner of the property, many a time, the relative hardship, to be faced by the tenant, in the event of eviction being ordered; becomes equally, if not more important.

CRP 1508 / 2013

CRPSR 8739 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
TURUPATI VENKATA RAMANA  VSSANKA PADMAVATHI & SANKA BHOGA AYYAPPA
PET.ADV. : SANNIDHIRAJA MALLESWARA RAORESP.ADV. : SRIHARI
SUBJECT: RENT CONTROLDISTRICT:  GUNTUR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY


C.R.P. No.1508 of  2013

ORDER:

The petitioner is the tenant of the 1st respondent, in respect of non-residential premises in Tenali town of Guntur District.  Stating that the premises are needed for the establishment of a shop by her son, the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent filed RCC.No.27 of 2010 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for eviction of the petitioner.  It is also stated that there is a clause in the rental agreement to the effect that, whenever the
1st respondent demands, the petitioner shall vacate the premises.  The 1st respondent further pleaded that the father of the petitioner owns a shopping complex, and though the petitioner had facility elsewhere, he is not vacating the shop.  The petitioner opposed the RCC, by filing counter. 

The learned Rent Controller allowed the RCC, through order dated 10-02-2012, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. 
R.C.A.No.2 of 2012, filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, was dismissed, through order dated 13-03-2013.  Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri S. Malleshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the respondents
1 and 2.

The Rent Controller framed only one point for its consideration, viz., 
whether the petition schedule property is required by the 1strespondent for her bona fide requirement.  
The respondents herein deposed as PWs 1 and 2, and they filed
Exs.P-1 to P-11.  The petitioner deposed as RW-1, and one, Mr.Shaik Meera Vali, was examined as RW-2.  No documentary evidence was filed by him.

The Rent Controller allowed the RCC and directed eviction.  In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority framed two points for its consideration, viz., 

1)                           Whether appellant is entitled for setting aside the order and decree of lower Court in RCC 27/2010, dt.10-02-2012; and
2)                           Whether the respondents were able to establish the bona fide requirement, for personal occupation?

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. 
           
            There is no dispute that the petitioner is the tenant of the
1st respondent.  
Apart from reiterating the contents of the petitioner, the 1st respondent has placed before the Court, the rent receipts, the receipts for property tax, and certain documents pertaining to her treatment. 
 Her case was that she has become old, and she needs the support of her son, the 2nd respondent, who is said to have discontinued the studies and intended to establish a shop.  
The recorded evidence clearly discloses that the requirement pleaded by the 1st respondent is bona fide in nature.
           
            Notwithstanding the bona fide nature of the requirement of the owner of the property, many a time, the relative hardship, to be faced by the tenant, in the event of eviction being ordered; becomes equally, if not more important.  

In case it becomes difficult to a tenant to procure other premises, on being evicted, the Court is required to take the same into account.  

 In the instant case, it has been proved beyond any pale of doubt, that the father of the petitioner owns a shopping complex of 33 shops, just opposite to the petition schedule premises.  
In addition to that, there is a clear understanding between the parties, to the effect that the petitioner shall vacate the premises, as and when demanded by the 1st respondent. 
           
            The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have dealt with the matter objectively, and arrived at correct conclusions.
This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.  The petitioner is granted two months time, from today, to vacate the premises.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P., shall also stand disposed of.     

There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

 

Dt.12-04-2013


KO         




Comments