ORDER
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This Revision Petition by the landlady, is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1998, dated 25-9-2000 on the file of the Rent Control Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil. Judge, Kakinada, allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, reversing the judgment and decree passed in R.C.C. No. 32 of 1991, dated 9-2-1998 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. The petitioner-landlady is the owner of the house bearing D. No. 20-13-6, Mosque Street, Kakinada and the respondent herein is the tenant in one of the shops, carrying radio repair business paying rent of Rs. 145/- per month. It is the case of the landlady that monthly rent is Rs. 145/-, but the respondent agreed for the
enhancement of rent to Rs. 450/- per month from 1-7-1991. It is her case that in spite of agreement of rent at Rs. 450/- per month from 1-7-1991, the respondent-tenant did not pay the enhanced rent at Rs. 450/- per month, as such it amounts to wilful default in payment of rent from 1-7-1991 onwards. It is her case that since the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent wilfully, she sought eviction of the premises. Apart from the said ground, she also sought eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule premises on the ground that she bona fidely requires the premises to start cloth business. As much as her husband retired from service, they want to start business in the suit schedule premises and therefore the petitioner-landlady sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement also.
3. The respondent-tenant resisted the eviction petition stating that rent was only Rs. 145/- per month and he voluntarily increased it to Rs. 200/- from 1-7-1991 and he has paid the said amount without any default and disputed the alleged agreement pleaded by the petitioner for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. It is the case of the respondent-tenant that the petitioner-landlady does not require the premises bona fidely and that similar ground was raised in the earlier eviction petition RCC. No. 83 of 1981 and the same was negatived by the Rent Controller. It is pleaded by the respondent-tenant that the alleged bona fide requirement of the premises for starting business by her husband is only a ground invented so as to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule premises and there are no bona fides in the plea of the petitioner. It is further stated that that other shops in the same building premises have fallen vacant and they are equally suitable for starting business and they were leased out for higher rents whenever they were vacated. Subsequent to
the filing of the counter, additional ground was raised which was allowed as per order in IA. No. 4689 of 1997, dated 12-11-1997. Further it is pleaded that another adjacent shop was already vacated after filing eviction petition and the said shop was utilized by the petitioner for the alleged business of textile and they have already started the said business in the said shop in the name and style of Sri Balaji Textiles,
4. To substantiate the case, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.
5. P.W. 1 is the landlady. P.W.2 is the husband of the landlady and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the persons, who according to the petitioner, are the witnesses for the mediations took place for enhancement of rent on 10-6-1991. The three documents marked on behalf of the petitioner are Ex.A1-Money Order coupon, and Exs.A2 and A3 -notice and reply notice issued by the petitioner and respondent respectively. R.W.1 is the tenant and the documents Exs.B1, B2 and B8 marked on behalf of the tenant are postal acknowledgments and Money Order receipt coupon. Ex.B3 is the bunch of photographs relating to suit schedule premises. Ex.B4 is the depositions of the husband of the petitioner in RCC No. 83 of 1981 and Exs.B6 and B.7 are the judgment and decree respectively in RCC No. 83 of 1981.
6. The Primary Tribunal believing the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in support of the alleged mediations held on 10-6-1991 on the ground that enhanced rent was not paid, recorded a finding to the effect that the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents. Further the Primary Tribunal recorded that the requirements pleaded by the petitioner is also bona fide one and accepted the plea of Vastu advise
for not occupying the western side shop which was vacated subsequent to the filing of the petition. The Primary Tribunal further held that the petitioner has sought eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises which is at North-East corner and the same is according to Vastu to start business. As such Primary Tribunal recorded mat the requirement is bona fide one. Based on the above said findings of wilful default committed by the respondent tenant and the bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for starting cloth business by the husband of the petitioner-landlady, the Primary Tribunal has ordered eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule Premises. As against the same, the respondent-tenant preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The lower Appellate Tribunal found that there is no sufficient proof and evidence to prove that the respondent-tenant has agreed for enhancement of rents. To prove the said mediations, the petitioner was examined as P.W.I and her husband was examined as PW2. P.W.3 is none other than the nephew and son-in-law of the landlady and PW4 is one K.Durani, who is said to be the close family friend of PWs.1 and 2, apart from a neighbour. As such the lower Appellate Tribunal recorded findings to the effect that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner-landlady are all self interested witnesses. It is also recorded that the landlady earlier filed eviction petition RCC No. 83 of 1981 on the selfsame grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement and the same was rejected. As such there are no compelling reasons for the tenant to agree for enhancement of rent. Finding so, the lower Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings of the Primary Tribunal, with regard to wilful default.
7. Even with reference to the bona
fide requirement, the lower Appellate
Tribunal reversed the said finding of the Primary Tribunal and recorded that there are no valid reasons for not occupying the one of the western side shops to the petition schedule premises, which was vacated subsequently. Further it rejected the ground of Vastu advise. The lower Appellate Tribunal further recorded that the grounds are invented only for the purpose to overcome the earlier findings in RCC. No. 83 of 1981 and there are no bona fides on the part of the landlady in seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises. The lower Appellate Tribunal categorically found that there are no valid reasons in not occupying the shop, which is fallen vacant on the western side. Further, as the landlady and her husband had admittedly started cloth business in the middle shop which is evident from Ex. B.3 and as such, it found that there are no bona fides on the part of the landlady and therefore reversed the findings recorded by the Primary Tribunal and in result, it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant setting aside the judgment and decree of the primary authority.
8. Heard the learned Counsel on either side at length.
9. It is argued by Sri A. Veera Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has reversed the finding without recording valid reasons on both grounds, namely, wilful default and bona fide requirement. He has submitted that there is evidence on record in support of the mediations held on 10-6-1991 to prove that there was enhancement of rent and as admittedly the said enhanced rent was not paid, it amounts to wilful default. Further it is stated that bona fide requirement is a recurring cause of action and the appellate authority referring the earlier proceedings in RCC No. 83 of 1981 has held erroneously that the requirement is not bona fide. As per the learned Counsel, in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court, the lower appellate authority ought not to have relied on the proceedings in earlier round of litigation in RCC. No. 83 of 1981. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, , wherein it was held that the ground of bona fide requirement is recurring cause of action. Further he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, , wherein it was held that there is no presumption that a pensioner who has adequate pension can not have bona fide need to start business after retirement. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.C. Tamrakar and Anr. v. Nidi Lekha, , wherein it was held that while assessing the need of the landlord, extraneous considerations should not be considered. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy, , wherein the Apex Court has considered the parameters of the bona fide requirement and it was held that bona fide requirement must be the outcome of sincere honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises or for any member of the family.
10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri T. Bheemsen, learned Counsel for
the respondent that there are no grounds to seek eviction and both the grounds are
invented only for the purpose of getting the tenant-respondent evicted from the suit
schedule premises. It is further stated by the learned Counsel that the respondent-tenant is regular in payment of rents and there is absolutely no proof or evidence
for the increase of rents in the alleged mediations held on 10-6-1991. As such there
is no room for the landlord to complaint about the non-payment of enhanced rents so
as to constitute ground of wilful default for ordering eviction. It is further stated by the learned Counsel that the landlady already occupied the premises in the middle portion and started business along with her husband and there is absolutely no bona fide need to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant from the schedule premises. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that even on the earlier occasions when adjoining shop fell vacant, the landlady has not occupied, but it was leased out at higher rent.
11. Having regard to the above submissions, the only question which falls for consideration is: Are there any grounds warranting interference with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate authority in exercise of powers under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. The lower appellate authority, in my view, has recorded valid reasons in support of its findings that there is no wilful default on the part of the respondent-tenant in paying the rents and there is no bona fide requirement of the schedule premises by the landlady. Coming to the wilful default aspect, it is not the case of the landlady that the respondent-tenant is defaulted in payment of rents. This is a case where regular rents are being paid, but the landlady has come up with the ground that there were mediations on 10-6-1991 in which it was agreed by the tenant for payment of higher rents at Rs. 450/- per month and according to the landlady, the enhanced rents are not paid, which amounts to wilful default. When default is pleaded enhanced rents are not paid, burden heavily lies on the landlord to prove that there was enhancement of rents. In the present case, the landlady has strongly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to prove that there was enhancement of rents, but this aspect is thoroughly dealt by the appellate authority stating that four witnesses were examined,
wherein P.Ws.1 and 2 are the landlady
and her husband, P.W.3 is none other than
their son-in-law and P.Ws.4 is, even
according to P.Ws.1 and 2, is their family
friend. Having regard to the above said
evidence, the lower appellate authority has
held that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be
relied on straight away without any
corroborating evidence with regard to
mediations, in which the tenant alleged to
have agreed for enhancement of rent. The
above said finding is based on appreciation
of evidence and is based on valid reasons.
As such it cannot be said that the said
findings are perverse, warranting any
interference under the revisional jurisdiction
by this Court. As I already held that it is
not a case of non-payment of rent, but it is
the case of landlady that enhanced rent is
not paid; As much as very enhancement
is not proved, the question of default will
not arise. With reference to bona fide
requirement, the lower appellate authority
has held that whenever there is vacation by
tenant in western side shops to the suit
schedule premises, the landlady leased out
the said premises at higher rents. Added to
the same, further it was held that the landlady
has already occupied one of the shops,
adjoining the schedule premises and doing
business in the same. The said occupation
and starting of business in the middle portion,
which is subsequent event, is not denied. It
is also not the case of the landlady that the
said shop, which is middle one, is not
sufficient one for carrying on business. With
reference to the findings recorded by
the appellate authority, valid reasons are
recorded in support thereof. The judgments
relied on by the learned Counsel are not
helpful having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case. There cannot
be any dispute that bona fide requirement
is a recurring cause of action as held by
the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v.
B. Francis Jagan (supra). In the instant
case, it is not said that there is no cause
of action for the landlord (sic landlady).
Cause of action with regard to plea of bona fide requirement is examined with reference to the present eviction proceedings only and it is held that ground of bona fide requirement is not proved. Merely because the earlier proceedings in RCC No. 83 of 1981 are referred, it cannot be said that such finding is bad. The appellate authority has examined the cause of action with reference to the filing of the present eviction proceedings only and held that there is no bona fide requirement. The judgment relied on in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan (supra) is also not helpful to the petitioner, as much as no presumption is drawn with regard to the capacity of the landlady and her husband for starting business. No extraneous grounds are considered by the lower appellate authority while assessing the need of bona fide requirement of the landlady. Even the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in R.C. Tamrakar and Anr. v. Nidi Lekha (supra) and Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy (supra) are not helpful as the findings of the lower appellate authority are based on the valid reasons with reference to evidence and material on record. No illegality or any jurisdictional error committed by the lower appellate authority warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960. I do not see any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate authority and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.