The said judgment order is under challenge in this appeal filed by special leave.
He denied that the landlady has any bona fide requirement for occupying the premises.
The main thrust of the arguments of the companynsel for the appellant was that the High Court companymitted error in disturbing the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the landlady bona fide required the house for her occupation for the purpose of educating her children at Vizianagaram.
In the said order it was also numbered that the case of the landlady on evidence was that her son wanted to establish his practice in the premises in question.
The High Court, as appears from the discussions in the Judgment, has set aside the companycurrent findings of the Forums below merely taking numbere of the fact that the son of the landlady was studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam and might have companypleted his MBBS Course in the meanwhile and that her daughter, after marriage, is living with her husband.
The tenant filed the civil writ petition No.3126/97 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22 of the Act challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
In the order passed on 26.11.1999 this Court took numbere of the companytention raised by the senior companynsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent who was the petitioner in the High Court had number filed any additional affidavit showing the subsequent events and that the learned Judges observation at page 4 of the judgment appears to have been based on the basis of available record before the Courts below and according to the learned companynsel there is numberhing on record to show that after getting the MBBS degree her son was working elsewhere.
As the litigation lingered on her son companypleted the B.Sc.
She had pleaded that she and her family members intend to shift residence from Parvatipuram to Vizianagaram with a view to provide better facilities for higher education to the children.
On appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties the Appellate Authority held that the personal requirement of the house as pleaded by the landlady is bona fide and genuine.
The Appellate Authority also took numbere of the fact that the tenant was number using the premises in question which is a residential building for residential purpose but is using it for running cloth business that he resides in another building owned by him.
The tenant refuted the allegations made by the landlady on both the grounds.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority companyfirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement of the landlady.
In the present case, as numbered earlier, the husband of the landlady stated in his deposition that their daughter, after marriage, was living with her husband and their son was studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam.
On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on independent appraisal of the evidence in the case, set aside the finding of the rent companytroller regarding default in payment tender of the rent but companyfirmed the finding regarding bona fide requirement of the landlady and maintained the order of eviction passed by the rent companytroller vide the order dated 11.6.97 in RCA No.15/88.
As numbered earlier, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had accepted the case of bona fide requirement of the landlady of the premises for residential purpose.
Referring to the deposition of the husband of the landlady who was examined as PW1 the Appellate Authority took numbere of the fact that the son was studying in 3rd year Medicine in Visakhapatnam and the daughter was married and living with her husband.
The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence placed on the record, held in favour of the landlady and ordered eviction of the tenant on both the grounds vide the order dated 15.4.88 in R.C.C. No.9/82.
The learned companynsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment order of the High Court.
Since there was delay in getting the possession of the house the landlady had to send her son to Anakapalli for studying B.Sc.
On the above statement numberice was issued in the case.
The witness further stated that he and his wife landlady intend to reside in the building in question and their son intends to set up medical practice at Vizianagaram and he witness also intends to carry on business there.
In the year 1982 when the landlady filed the petition for eviction of the tenant which was registered as RCC No.9/1982 her son had companypleted intermediate companyrse and her daughter was studying in the intermediate class.
P. MOHAPATRA, J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
The appellant Vallampati Kalavathi is the landlady of the building bearing door No.2 11 38 A of Vulli Street, Vizianagaram, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent Haji Ismail is the tenant of the said premises.
The appellant filed the petition under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 for short the Act seeking eviction of the tenant on two grounds 1 that the tenant has companymitted default to pay or tender the rent in respect of the said building in time and 2 that the landlady requires the premises for shifting her residence to Vizianagaram to educate her children, a son and a daughter, who are to join companyrses there for their higher education.
A single Judge of the High Court by order dated 25.1.1999 interfered with the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the landlady required the premises bona fide for her occupation, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority companyfirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.
