AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in R.C A. No. 107/82, dated 24-2-1990, whereby the order of eviction and decree pased by the Rent Controller in R.C.C. 65/1981 has been confirmed. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of C.R.P. 302/95 because it is arising out of I.A. No. 3282/94 in R.C.A. No. 107/82, that is to say the appeal against which this revision petition has been filed. 25
The facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that the deceased respondent No. 1 was the owner and landlord of the double storeyed building situated in Kaleswara Rao Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. He was occupying the ground floor of this building, except a portion measuring about 6 ft x 8 ft. which was let out to ''Vijaya Diesel House''. The petitioner was inducted as a monthly tenant by the deceased landlord in a portion of the 1st floor of the said building while the remaining portion was let out to Virtuous Finance and Cherubic Credit and Investment Pvt Ltd. The deceased-landlord was a Chartered Accountant and was practising as such along with his two major sons and two major daughters in the aforesaid portion of the ground floor wherein he was residing also, with them.
The deceased-landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need for his personal occupation for residential as well as non- residential use by way of additional accommodation.
The petitioner denied the need of the deceased landlord and claimed that under an agreement of lease, he was inducted as a lessee for ten years and, therefore, he cannot be evicted. He also alleged that the requirement for personal occupation of the deceased-landlord, if granted, would cause hardship to the petitioner and it would outweigh the advantage of the deceased-landlord.
On assessment of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller found that the need of the deceased-landlord was genuine for residential as well as non- residential purposes and allowed the application for ejectment, directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in his possession (in short ''suit accommodation'').
The petitioner preferred and appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller but it was disallowed and the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has preferred this revision.
During the pendency of the revision, this Court vide order dated 17-12-1991 directed the lower appellate Court to frame and decide the following issue and to submit its finding with reasons.
"Whether the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting eviction order will outweigh the advantage of the landlord?".
The lower appellate Court, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to the deceased-landlord, reached the conclusion that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant-petitioner by granting the relief of ejectment will not outweigh the advantage of the deceased-landlord-respondent, and submitted its findings to this Court.
It is a matter of record that, after the conclusion of the enquiry and after hearing both the parties to the proceedings, the matter was reserved for Orders by the lower appellate Court and before the orders could be passed, the sole landlord-respondent died whereupon the petitioner filed I.A. 3282/94 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased-landlord on record, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that the deceased-landlord has died only after the matter was closed for orders and, therefore, there was no need to implead the legal representatives of the deceased-landlord as parties to the appeal. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred C.R.P. 302/95. The respondents No. 2 to 5 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-landlord in C.M.P. 20774/94 in CRP No. 1207/90 vide docket order dated 13-8-1996.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of the enquiry held by the lower appellate Court regarding comparative hardship, the other tenant of the deceased-respondent, namely Virtuous Finance and Cherublc Credit and Investment Pvt Ltd., had vacated and delivered the vacant possession of the accommodation in its occupation in the first floor on 18-1-1992 and similarly the other tenant carrying on business under the name and style of Vijaya Diesel House has also vacated the portion of the ground floor in his occupation as a tenant sometime in the month of January, 1992, but instead of occupying the same, the deceased-landlord had hanged ''to-let'' board which establishes that his need was not bona fide. It is also urged that the deceased landlord had inducted new tenants in other portions of the building after carrying out repairs which act also goes a long way to establish that the need of the deceased-landlord was mala fide. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel of the petitioner that the landlord has died and, therefore, the need of his legal representatives can be fulfilled in the present accommodation in their occupation, because there is one member less in their family.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that no new tenants have been inducted in any portion of the building. The portions that were occupied by the previous tenants were handed over back to them after repairs were carried out in the respective accommodation. The need of the respondents has not been fulfilled by occupying the first floor portion of the building which has been vacated by Virtuous Finance and Cherubic Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd, looking to the size of the family as also the business they carry on. The small room vacated by Vijaya Diesel house is in a dilapidated condition wherein building material have been stored and it does not fulfil their need.
On perusal of the allegations made in the petition by the deceased- landlord, it appears that he intended to keep the ground floor for residence for himself and two major sons and two major daughters and to do the practice of Chartered Accountancy in the first floor, because his practice has increased and his establishment required more accommodation and his sons and daughters are also Chartered Accountants. Thus, it is crystal clear that the suit accommodation was required not only for the deceased-landlord, but also for his two major sons and two major daughters who are Chartered Accountants and were practising with him for residence-cum-office purposes.
I get from the evidence of the deceased-landlord which was recorded on 25-2-1982 that his eldest daughter who was aged about 26 years and the youngest daughter, who was aged about 20 years, as also two sons elder to them, had undergone chartered accountants training for three years for graduation and were engaged in the same profession with him in the same place. Two rooms and a hall were utilised for office purposes and four rooms were utilised for residence. This accommodation, in his possession, was not sufficient for residence as well as office and, therefore, he wanted genuinely the whole ground floor and the first floor for residence-cum-office. He had employed seven apprentices and nine paid employees to work in his office.
It is pertinent to note that the Rent Controller, during spot in spection, had found that the north-eastern portion of the ground floor was used as a bathroom and the adjoining room was used as a bed room while the last room was used as a common room for office during the day time and as bed room during the night time. In the back side of the main building, towards the southern end of the building, a kitchen is located and hall adjoining to it was used as a waiting hall for the clients. The north-eastern room was used as office room and in the part of the main hall, cupboard had been fixed to keep the files.
It is a matter of record that during the pendency of the enquiry regarding comparative hardship, the lower appellate Court had appointed a Commissioner for spot inspection and the report of the Commissioner was not challenged by either party to the proceedings. As per the report of the Commissioner, the stair case in the ground floor leads to the office room in the first floor and there & re two name boards fixed on the east of the office room as M/s. Sastry and Company and M.S.R. Prasad and M.L.N. Prasad, Chartered accountants and the measurement of the said office is roughly 20 ft x 10 ft. From this room, there is exit to the computer room where the two sons of the deceased-landlord were found working on computer. In the room measuring about 6 ft x 8 ft. where the board of Vijaya Diesel House was hanging was not in use and unused building material and mud were found lying there.
Both the sons and daughters of the deceased-landlord are grown up sons and daughters and are qualified Chartered Accountants, Considering their age, there appears to be imminent prospects of celebration of their marriages. Besides them, the widow of the deceased-landlord is also residing. Looking to the status of the Respondents, it is reasonable to conclude that each respondent requires one separate bed room with reference to factors of privacy and convenience, particularly when, as noted aboved, there are imminent prospects of celebration of the marriages of both the sons and the daughters. Both the sons and the daughters are Chartered Accountants and there is evidence on record that they have gained sufficient experience and have set up good practice. Under these circumstances, the accommodation which they have obtained from Virtuous Finance and Cherubic Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd, in the first floor by itself does not fulfil their need particularly when they require first floor as additional accommodation for their office. The small room lying vacant would, not fulfil their need, even if it is also utilised considering the size of the family and its need.
Having regard to the evidence in this case and the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below, I do not see any reason to interfere in it.
In the case of Mst. Bega Begum and Others Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, , it is held that in deciding the extent of the hardship that may be caused to one party or the other, in case a decree for eviction is passed or is refused, each party has to prove its relative advantaged or disadvantages and the entire onus cannot be thrown on the plaintiffs to prove that lesser disadvantages will be suffered by the defendants and that they were remediable. It has also been observed in this case by the Apex Court that the tenant has to prove that he will not be able to get any accommodation anywhere in the city or town concerned before it could be ultimately contended that he had a greater hardship as compared to that of the landlord.
In the case on hand, there is no iota of evidence or material on record from which it can be inferred that the petitioner will not be able to get alternative accommodation in Vijayawada for his business. True that the petitioner had invested sufficient amount in the suit accommodation sometime after 1976 hut that by itself is not sufficient to conclude that he would be put to more hardship than the respondents would be put to, in case he is directed to vacate the suit accommodation. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit accommodation in the year 1974 for two years. The say of the petitioner that in the year 1976, he was promised to be given a lease for a period of ten years but the self-serving statement of this witness does not inspire confidence, particularly because he has not stated to have ever tried for getting a registered lease deed executed in his favour by the deceased-landlord. Even, otherwise the period of 10 years has expired by the year 1986. Under these circumstances, merely because the petitioner has invested money to make the accommodation air-conditioned and has done other improvements, it cannot be said mat the hardship which may be caused to him by granting eviction order will outweigh the advantage of the landlord, that is to say, the respondents. The lower appellate Court on a careful comparison and on assessment of the material on record, has reached a clear finding that the hardship of the respondents would be greater than that of the petitioner and, therefore, this finding does not require any interference. True that the father of the respondents, who was the landlord, has expired, but the need of the respondents does not appear to be minimised merely because now there is one member less in the family, particularly because, as noted above, there are prospects of increase in the family of the respondents due to marriages of both the brothers and the sisters.
In result, there appears to be no force in both the revision petitions, that 20 is to say CRP No. 1207/90 and CRP 302/95 and, therefore, both the revision petitions are dismissed. The petitioner shall bear his own costs of the revisions as well as the costs of the respondents.
At the request made on behalf of the petitioner for time to vacate the suit accommodation, I grant three months time to handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the respondents-landlords.