ARJUN DASS Vs. MADANLAL MADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions filed under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) arise out of a common order passed by the appellate authority, the Chief Judge, City small causes court, Hyderabad in three appeals R.A. Nos. 168, 170 and 198/77 confirming these separate orders passed by the Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C. Nos. 581, 582 and 580/75 directing eviction of the respondents-tenants under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act on the ground that entire building consisting of four different portions in the occupation of the respondents-tenants was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal occupation.

(2.) The building consists of four blocks, of which Blocks 5 and 6 in the first floor of the building are in the occupation of the tenant Arjun Dass. Block 4 in the ground floor is in the occupation of the tenant Fate- chand Chottram. Block No. 3 in the ground floor is in the occupation of the tenant Nathanand. Admittedly, the landlord is residing in a rented building consisting of two rooms and one kitchen.

(3.) At the time of filing the eviction petitions in 1975, the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and three children. The landord tiled three eviction petitions against each of the tenants on the ground that he bona fide required the premises in occupation of each of the tenants for hii personal occupation. He also alleged in R.C. Nos.580 and 582/75 that the said tenants had sublet the premises. It is brought out in the evidence that the entire house consists of 13 rooms, three kitchens, three bathrooms and three lavatories. The Rent controller rejected the plea that the tenants had sublet the premises, but upheld the claim of the landlord that he bona fide required the premises in the occupation of each of the tenants for his personal occupation and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenants.