SYED ABDUL WAHAB Vs. WILFRED DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in R.A. No. 405 of 1999 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has reversed the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C. No. 161 of 1997 and allowed the appeal filed by the landlord.

(2.) The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing municipal No. 4-1-315, 4-1-326, 4-1-320, 4-1-321, 4-1-322, 4-1-323, 4-1-324, 4-1-326 and 4-1-426, situated at Troop bazaar, Bank Street, Hyderabad. Now we are concerned with an extent of 202.65 sq. feet of the property bearing municipal No. 4-1-426 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition schedule property). The respondent is the tenant of the petition schedule property. Originally, the total extent of the petition schedule mulgi No. 4-1-426 was 244.64 sq. ft., and out of which an extent of 202.65 sq. ft., was allotted to the share of the petitioner and the remaining area i.e., 42 sq. ft., was allotted to one Prem Shanker Asthana. The agreed rent of Rs. 250/ - per month is being shared by the petitioner and Prem Shanker Asthana at Rs. 207/and Rs. 43/ - per month respectively and there is no dispute whatsoever between the petitioner and the said Prem Shanker Asthana. Though there was earlier litigation between the parties, when the respondent filed R.C. No. 242 of 1989 for deposit of the rents and when the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 4345 of 1985 on the file of the III Additional Judge alleging that the respondent caused damage to the property, but we are not concerned with that litigation at present. Since the petitioner himself filed a memo withdrawing the grounds in respect of default and damage to the property, now we are concerned only with regard to the issue of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner for the purpose of providing a passage to the entire complex.