Dr. S. Padma Rao vs Radhu Ram (died) and Another

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—This is a land-lord''s revision petition.

Landlord filed R.C. No. 858/86 on the file of III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad u/s 10(3)(c) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') against the respondent to evict the respondent from the scheduled property and to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the same and to award costs.

Relationship between parties and quantum of rent are not disputed.

On service of notice, the tenant filed his objections denying the allegations in the petition, on the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether the petitioner requires the demised portion bona fide for his additional accommodation to expand his Nursing Home?

To support rival contentions, both parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of the petitioner two witnesses were examined, including the petitioner himself, whereas the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

After assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to vacate the premises. It may be noted here that during the course of trial, the petitioner landlord offered that he is prepared to let out another portion of his house, on the same terms and conditions, to the tenant, if he vacates the premises.

Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 387/87 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned appellate judge, after appreciating the entire evidence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, on the ground that: the landlord has not made out the case and dismissed R.C. No. 858/1986. Hence this revision u/s 22 of the Act.

Sri Saleem, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the approach of the Court below in rejecting the request of the landlord, while allowing the appeal is quite incorrect. Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties to arrive at the conclusion that the land lord failed to prove bonafide requirement. Before allowing the appeal, Court below should have taken into consideration the offer made by the landlord i.e., he is prepared to let out another portion of his house, in case the tenant vacates the present premises. If the said proposal was accepted, the entire problem would have been solved. The Court below made much out of some of so called admissions made by the landlord, white ignoring the admissions made by the tenant. Thus arguing, he submitted that the petition be allowed.

Whereas Smt. Jayasree Saradhi, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the Court below, after appreciating the entire evidence found that the landlord did not make out any case u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act. As such any interference by this Court is not warranted because the order of the lower appellate Court is not illegal or (sic. nor) it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Offer made by the landlord is not practicable and the portion offered by the landlord is in a dilapidated condition. So (sic. she) further submitted that the tenant is a poor man. That if he is evicted now from the premises, great hardship will be caused to him. If this Court feels that the reasoning adopted by the Court below is liable to be set aside, at least reasonable time may be granted to the tenant.

Smt. Jayasree Saradhi, learned Counsel for the tenant sought for three years'' time for eviction, whereas Sri M.A. Saleem, learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that since he has made out a good case for granting eviction, no time be granted. On persuasion he agreed to grant a maximum period of six months.

After hearing both sides and going through the entire evidence, I am satisfied that the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate Court is quite incorrect. Court below should have taken into consideration the offer made by the landlord. If the evidence is scanned properly, the irresistable conclusion would be that the landlord proved his case.

Hence, this Revision Petition is allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside, allowing R.C. No. 858/86 on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

Regarding time sought for eviction, by Smt. Jayasree Saradhi on behalf of the tenant, I think justice will be done if time is granted till the end of February, 1997. Accordingly, time is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises and put the landlord in vacant possession thereof, till the end of February 1997. During this period the tenant will be regular in payment of rent. The tenant shall maintain the premises in good condition and shall not sub-let the premises. Tenant to file an affidavit, undertaking these conditions, within a week. No costs.