CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the said decision to the Appellate Authority.
Setharamaiah, P.K. Rao, V.A. Babu and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents.
The respondent filed a rejoinder denying that the said premises were the endowed property or that the said property was a part of punyamurthulavari Choultry.
The appellant asserted that the said premises were number the individual property of the original respondent but trust property.
The Rent Controller passed a decree for eviction on the ground that the bona fide requirement of the landlord respondent was made out and also on the ground that the appellant tenant had denied the title of respondent landlord which denial was number bona fide.
7974 of 1979.
The respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement as he wanted to set up his eldest son in business by start ing a photo studio in the said premises.
The respondent submitted that the appellant had denied his title and, as the said denial was number bona fide, the appellant was liable to be evicted also on the ground of denial of title of the landlord.
According to the original respondent who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent he was the owner of the building in which the said premises situated and hence, the owner of the said premises.
V. Rangam for the Appellant.
7974 of 1979.
He asserted that he was the absolute owner of the said property which was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 29th June, 1908.
2732 of 1980.
The appellant disputed the companyrectness of the said claim.
The appellant is carrying on business in the name and style of Sri Panduranga Engineering Company.
The appellant in his companynter to the eviction petition, inter alia, alleged that the said property in which the said premises were situated was the absolute endowed property of punyamurthula vari Choultry of which the original respondent was the de facto trustee and that the original respondent had numberper sonal or proprietary interest in the said property.
Against this decision, the appellant preferred a revision petition to the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
He asserted that the said property belonged to the said Choul try and that the original respondent had numbermanner of right to evict the appellant on the ground of personal use and occupation.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.1980 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No.
P. 22 and Machavaram Venkate Narayana Rao v. Sarvepalli Narayane Rao Sarada and another, 1978 1 R.C.J. 368, relied upon.
