ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. In this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Rent Act, for brevity), the landlord is the petitioner. He is Medical Doctor by profession. He is the owner of non-residential premises bearing Door No. 3-5-21/1 to 5 situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad - a prime commercial area (hereafter called, the schedule premises). A portion of the same in the first floor was let out to the respondent (tenant), who is Dental Surgeon specializing in Orthodontia (correction of teeth). The landlord filed R.C. No. 146 of 1998 before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the tenant for personal occupation. He gave two reasons for the same : that the landlord's father is suffering from old age problems and requires medical attendance regularly, and that he wants to shift practice from his native place to Hyderabad, as he has had been receiving threatening calls from extremists for over three years. The tenant opposed the petition denying the petition allegations and further alleged that the landlord has another suitable premises available in the area, that there was no threat from extremists and that the father of the landlord, who developed dislike, is bent upon evicting the tenant.
2. Learned Rent Controller after considering evidence, believed landlord and ordered eviction, by order, dated 20-10-2000. In appeal by the tenant, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate authority), Hyderabad, however, allowed the appeal dismissing petition for eviction on the holding that the landlord failed to mention in the registered notice, Ex. P. 1, about the threat from naxalites (extremists).
3. Learned Counsel for the landlord - petitioner herein; contends that the finding of the appellate authority is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Having agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord wanted to shift his practice to Hyderabad, on surmise the appellate authority came to conclusion that there was no need to shift to Hyderabad when the landlord was getting handsome income in the village. He nextly submits that the situation in naxalite infested areas including Nizamabad District, is so fearsome, that no sane person would lodge a complaint to the police about the threats of naxalites and mere non-lodging of a complaint with the police cannot render evidence of the landlord unbelievable. He relied on the decision of this Court in Vatcha Chandra Kumari v. Atava Narasimha Rao 1997 (4) ALD 593.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/tenant raised the following contentions. The landlord, admittedly, has good practice in Navipet Village and except mala fide intention to evict the tenant, the landlord has no necessity of the schedule premises for personal occupation. He failed to prove the bona fide requirement and the alleged naxalite problem and threats he faced in Navipet Village. The Rent Act has been amended by A.P. Act No. 17 of 2005 with effect from 28-5-2005 taking the buildings fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- and above, from outside the purview of the Rent Act and that during the pendency of the proceedings, with effect from 1-4-2004, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- and the tenant has deposited the same to the Bank Account of the landlord in Bank of India, Kachiguda Branch. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition itself is not maintainable.
Scope of revision.
5. Section 22 of the Rent Act, empowers the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by the appellate authority and examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity and propriety of such order. In the initial years of working of the Rent Act, the High Courts interpreted the provision as enabling the re-examination of the evidence and scrutiny of the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority. This view, however, has not been accepted by Supreme Court while interpreting Section 22 of the Rent Act.
6. In Mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry v. Bhimanepalli Bikshalu : AIR1999SC3095 , Supreme Court held as under:
Coming to the second submission what we find is that the Rent Controller and the first appellate authority after assessing the evidence recorded concurrent finding of facts that the need of the landlord was bona fide. It was not pointed out that the said finding suffered from any legal infirmity. Under such circumstances, it was also not open to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to have indulged in reassessment of evidence and thereby interfered with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below,....
7. The above view was reiterated in N. Prabhakar Rao v. J.R. Ramesh Kumar : AIR2002SC95 . In Harshvardhan Chokkani v. Bhupendra N. Patel : [2002]2SCR133 , Supreme Court explained the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Rent Act as under:
There can be no controversy about the position that the power of the High Court under Section 22 of the Act is wider than the power under Section 115 CPC. Nonetheless, the High Court is exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the power of the revisional Court cannot be equated with the powers of the appellate Court. In examining the legality and the propriety of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved is such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like. It is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exist in this case to justify interference by the High Court.
(emphasis supplied)
8. Therefore, in this revision, it is required to be seen whether the appellate authority ignored the binding precedent and/or whether any reasonable person could have drawn such an inference as is done by the appellate authority. Before doing so, it is necessary to notice the applicability of the Rent Act to the present case as raised by learned Counsel for the tenant.
Applicability of Rent Act
9. As a first question, the consideration by this Court may be regarding the applicability of the Rent Act. Admittedly, when eviction petition was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement of personal occupation, agreed rent was Rs. 750/- per month. At that time, the buildings with less than Rs. 1,000/- rent per month or less than ten years old were exempted from the purview of the Rent Act. Eviction petition was allowed on 20-10-2000. The tenant filed appeal in 2000 and the same was disposed of by order, dated 15-4-2005. When the matter was heard by the appellate authority, the tenant did not raise any contention regarding the impact of Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005. Be that as it is, even if rent is more than Rs. 2,000/- as alleged at the revision stage, the amendment has no bearing on the adjudication of the rights of the landlord and tenant in 1998. This is well settled.
10. S.A. No. 532 of 2002 G. Anjaneeya Prasad v. S. Vinod Kumar : 2006(2)ALD662 , was initially listed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After framing a substantial question of law as to whether the civil Court can pass executable eviction decree though the Rent Control Act was made applicable to municipal area during the pendency of the suit. The learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. Ultimately, the matter was placed before the Full Bench, which considered the question whether Section 10(1) of the Rent Act costs the jurisdiction of the civil Court to pass a decree for eviction of any person, who is a tenant within the ambit of Rent Act. After referring to cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Full Bench answered the question holding that mere conversion of Gram Panchayat into Municipality, cannot have any effect on the proceedings which have already been initiated prior to the date of conversion before the Rent Control Authority. Subsequently, the case was placed before me. A similar submission was rejected by this Court in G. Anjaneeya Prasad v. S. Vinod Kumar (supra), observing as under:
The learned Single Judge of this Court in Satish Chandra Makan v. Dr. S.V.S. Sastry 2006 (1) ALD 145, has held that Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act as amended by Act No. 17 of 2005 does not apply retrospectively from the date of original Act and that it is only prospective. This Court has no strong reason to defer with the view taken in Satish Chandra Makan v. Dr. S.V.S. Sastry (supra). In this case, the trial Court passed the decree on 17-4-2000, which was confirmed by the appellate Court on 25-4-2002 much before Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act came into force i.e., 28-5-2005. The decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court has become final. Mere pendency of the second appeal for admission before this Court does not in any manner affect the finality of the decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by appellate Court. Be it noted, unless the second appeal is accepted by this Court framing a substantial question of law, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the lower Courts is at large nor can it be said that the decree passed by the trial Court is eclipsed by mere pendency of the second appeal at the stage of admission. Therefore, Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act cannot come to the rescue of the defendants. At the relevant time, the suit was instituted, decree was passed and such decree was confirmed by the trial Court. Rent Control Act had no application to the suit premises and therefore the defendants cannot even take shelter under Section 10(1) of the Rent Control Act.
11. In this case, except stating across the Bar that with effect from 1-4-2004, the tenant on his own started depositing the rent to the Bank Account of the landlord, no effort is made to bring the subsequent even by way of an amendment or by way of an affidavit before the Court. The same does not, however, make any difference in view of the above decision which followed ratio of a Full Bench in the same case in prior reference.
Bonafide requirement
12. The landlord sought eviction for personal occupation on the ground that his father is suffering from gernotological problem and that he has to shift his practice to Hyderabad. By the time the trial started, the father of the landlord died and therefore, this ground did not survive. In proof of the other reason for bona fide requirement, the landlord alleged that he has constant threats from naxalites/extremists and therefore, he wants to shift the practice from Navipet to Hyderabad giving up lucrative practice at the village. The Rent Controller believed it. The landlord examined himself as P.W. 1 and his brother as P.W. 3, whose evidence was corroborated that of former to the effect that there is persistent naxalite threat to the landlord. In rebuttal, the tenant pleaded that the landlord has lands and buildings in the village, that he has no intention to shift to Hyderabad and that the naxalite threat is not proved by examining independent witness. Dealing with this aspect, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the plea of naxalite threat can be believed. The reason given is as under:
P.W. 3, who is one of the brothers of the petitioner categorically stated that the petitioner sold out his lands in the Navipet Village and also his building in Navipet Village. A suggestion is given to him that the petitioner did not sell his lands and buildings but that suggestion is denied. It appears that P.W. 3 has no necessity to depose false. Just because he is the brother of the petitioner, it cannot be said that his evidence is not believable and it is a tainted one. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 categorically stated that there is a threat from Naxalites to the petitioner. They denied the suggestions that there is no threat. P.W. 1 also stated that the threat from Naxalites still persists. There cannot be any documentary proof to prove those alleged threats from the Naxalites to the petitioner. Even the petitioner cannot adduce the oral evidence of any third person from the village to prove these threats because the Naxalites or the extremists will not give the open threats at all times and naturally no person will be dare enough to speak about the threats by the Naxalites in a Court of law due to the tremendous fear of Naxalites. So therefore the petitioner is the best person to speak and disclose about the threats from the Naxalites. Therefore, his contention that he has been receiving the threatening calls from Naxalites cannot be disbelieved.
(emphasis supplied)
13. The appellate Court, however, did not agree with the learned Rent Controller observing that Ex. P. 1, notice, dated 21-11-1997 issued by the landlord to the tenant did not contain such a plea. The appellate authority also observed that the absence of such plea in Ex. P. 1, notice, renders plea of naxalite threat unbelievable. The inference drawn by the appellate Court and the reasoning in support of the same cannot be accepted for reasons more than one.
14. The Rent Act does not prescribe the issue of notice by the landlord is a condition precedent to invoke jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to seek eviction of the tenant. In such a situation, due importance cannot be given to any exchange of notices. In Ex. P. 1, notice, the landlord categorically stated that he requires the schedule premises for personal use. The law does not contemplate the landlord to tell the reasons for shifting from village to town. Such a plea, always, to be treated as bona fide.
15. In Vatcha Chandra Kumari's case (supra), this Court ruled that, 'when the landlord intends to shift the residence from village to town where he can do better business, the tenant cannot question the same as not bona fide. The following observations are apt to notice..In the present case, the learned Subordinate Judge has proceeded on assumption that the non-mentioning in the eviction petition of the fact that the petitioner's husband is doing business at Chagallu is fatal to the eviction petition. This has already been demonstrated as untenable in view of the decisions of this Court and Supreme Court. The other reasoning that as the petitioner and her husband are doing business admittedly at Chagallu, there is no reason why they should do business at Rajahmundry is also untenable, since doing business in a large town like Rajahmundry yields more income normally. Apart from this, the petitioner was set ex parte in the appeal. Though the learned Subordinate Judge has discussed the appeal on merits, still the facts remain that the landlady's case could not be properly focused before the appellate Court and consequently not correctly appreciated.
16. There is yet another reason. One should not forget that the right to reside and settle in any part of the country is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution and a citizen need not give reasons as to why he wants to shift from one place to another for the purpose of residence. When the State itself cannot compel the citizen to disclose reasons for opting a place of residence, the tenant cannot have any objection if the landlord wants to shift from the village to the town. P.Ws. 1 and 3 proved that the landlord sold away the lands and buildings at Navipet and that he is facing Naxalite threats. In accepting such plea, the learned Rent Controller gave very good reasons and every reasonable man having some knowledge of Naxalite problem in Nizamabad and other parts of Telangana Area of Andhra Pradesh would have come to the same conclusion. Terror has no rationality nor respect for Rule of Law. Terror can strike anybody at any place without reason or thyme. To put it in the words of George Orwel, 'there are no heroes in the face of pain'. Many Naxalite threats go unreported for fear of retaliation. The first idea in the face of terrorist threat is to escape from the situation. If a medical practitioner with lucrative practice in the rural area desires to shift to city, lock stock and barrel, on averment of threats from extremists, asking for strict proof of the same is adding insult to injury. The law cannot and should not be so 'pedantic' but should be guided by the 'spirit of law' to judge the cause of the landlord with the even scales, even though Rent Act is pro tenant.
17. This Court after giving anxious consideration entirely agrees with the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller, who conducted trial and saw the demeanour of the witnesses. This Court also finds that there are very good reasons to interfere with the order of the learned appellate authority not only on the ground that the inference drawn is erroneous but also on the ground that it failed to apply the correct principles of evidence.
18. The civil revision petition, for the above reasons, is allowed and two months time is granted to the respondent/tenant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner/landlord. There shall be no order as to costs.