High Court rejected revision against eviction order based on personal requirement. Granted tenant time till 31.12.2013 to vacate commercial shop subject to conditions of rent deposit and non-assignment.
Time granted for vacating premises up to 31.12.2013 subject to deposit of rent, no alienation of property, and filing of undertaking.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2210 of 2009
BETWEEN
Chintam Koeswara Rao and another.
... PETITIONERS
AND
Grandi Venkata Ratna Mahalakshmi and two others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. Y.V. RAVI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners are tenants. Respondents/landlords filed R.C.C.No.14 of 2003 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the second respondent is doing petty kirana shop business at Janampeta village and in order to provide good education to children and provide good medical facility to the first respondent, the respondents intend to shift the business to Eluru and sought eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of personal requirement. The said ground of personal requirement was accepted by the Rent Controller by order dated 13.11.2006 and also by the lower appellate Court in CMA.No.1 of 2007 dated 31.10.2008. Questioning the said orders, this revision is preferred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had been doing business for the last 75 years during the time of the father of the petitioner. He denied any personal requirement on the part of the respondents/landlords by contending that that the respondents are residing at Janampeta village and are already doing business there. It is contended that a person, who is carrying on business for so many years, would not disturb the business and start afresh at a new place. On that ground, the personal requirement pleaded was disputed. In order to support the said contention,
the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon Ex.B4, which is invitation printed by the respondents/landlords for Gruhapravesham of their residential house at Eluru. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the personal requirement stands negatived by the fact that the respondents/landlords not only have business at Janampeta village but also have house property in Eluru and it is highly improbable that they would commence fresh business at Eluru.
3. The Courts below have already considered the said contentions and rejected the same on finding that the house of the respondents/landlords at Eluru is a residential house and the same does not mitigate against the claim for eviction with respect to
non-residential premises, which is in the occupation of the petitioners. R.W.1 (petitioner) also admitted in evidence that he owns two shops in a commercial complex and there would be no problem for the petitioners to shift their business to their own shop by vacating the present premises. It is also borne out of the record that the business of the respondents/landlords at Janampeta village is a petty kirana business and in order to provide good education and better medical facilities, the requirement of schedule shop at Eluru cannot be said to be malafide considering the requirement pleaded and proved by the respondents/landlords and coupled with the fact that the petitioners/tenants already have two shops in a commercial complex.
4. In view of the above, I do not see any perversity or irregularity in the
findings reached by both the Courts below directing eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal requirement by the respondents/landlords. Revision petition has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners sought time for vacation of the premises up to 31.12.2013 in view of the fact that the existing 75 years old business will have to be shifted.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, however, submits that since the petitioners have already got alternative shops, maximum of three months time would be sufficient.
7. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner and his father has been carrying on business in the schedule premises for the last 75 years, I am inclined to grant time for vacating the premises up 31.12.2013 subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall deposit arrears of rent, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and shall continue to deposit every month’s rent in advance on or before 5th of each month to the credit of RCC.No.14 of 2003.
2. On such deposit, the respondents/landlords shall be at liberty to withdraw the amounts of rent without furnishing any security.
3. The petitioners/tenants shall also file an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller on or before 10.06.2013 that they shall not alienate, transfer or otherwise create any third party interest with regard to the schedule property and shall hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondents/landlords on or before the time stipulated, as above.
4. In default of any of these conditions, as above, the order of eviction shall be executable immediately.
The civil revision petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
April 18, 2013 DSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Controller's acceptance of personal requirement order of eviction was perverse.
Whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled to time for vacating the premises.
Chintam Koeswara Rao
Grandi Venkata Ratna Mahalakshmi
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
