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


C.R.P. No.1508 of  2013


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.







Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.