DEVI PERSHAD Vs. RAJAVA DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act), is directed against the judgment dated 7-12-2001 in R.A. No.187 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the eviction ordered by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C. No.63 of 1995. The tenants who are the respondents in R.C. No.63 of 1995 are the revision petitioners.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the Revision Petitioners and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as the tenants and the landlady respectively as they were arrayed in the eviction petition.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The landlady filed R.C. No.63 of 1995 under Sec. 10 (3)(a)(iii)(b) and Sec.10 (2)(v) of the Act for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule mulgies. As per the averments in the eviction petition the tenants jointly obtained the petition schedule mulgies along with the bathroom and latrine on lease and started running a business under the name and style Mangal Restaurant and Bar. The last written rental agreement dated 25-5-1987 was for a period of eleven months commencing from 1-6-1987. The rent agreed is Rs.900/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. It is stated that the sons of the landlady are unemployed and intended to commence business of their own and that the petition schedule mulgies are required for the purpose of business intended to be commenced by them. The landlady further pleaded that she is not in occupation of any other non-residential mulgi in twin cities and that the petition schedule mulgies are convenient for commencing business as they are located in a business centre. It is also alleged that the tenants have already secured alternative mulgies adjacent to the petition schedule mulgies where they are running hotel business. Accordingly she sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation and also on the ground that the tenants secured alternative premises for their business.