K NARAYANA RAO Vs. VYSYA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Different tenants are the petitioners in all the five revision petitions while the respondent-bank is their landlord. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing M.Nos. 3-3-795, 796,797,798,788,789 and 770 situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad. The respondent is having its banking business in the I floor of the premises while petitioner- tenants are carrying on business in the mulgies and godowns as tenants in the ground floor. As the respondent-bank bona fide requires the ground floor also, for extension of business, it filed R.Cs.375 to 379 of 1983 for eviction of the petitioner - tenants. As the learned Rent Controller dismissed those applications, the respondent-bank filed the appeals in R.A.Nos.288 to 292 of 1989 which were allowed. Hence these revisions by the tenants. Although the Rent Controller disposed of the rent control cases by separate orders the appeals were disposed of by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court by a common order since the building from which eviction is sought is one and the same and as common questions arise for consideration in all appeals. Hence it would be convenient to dispose of these revision petitions by a common order.

(2.) The case of the respondent-bank is that it is the owner of a double storeyed building bearing the aforesaid municipal numbers; the said building was constructed prior to 1957 and therefore, the provisions of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') apply to the premises; the petitioners are tenants of specific and separate mulgies and godowns in the ground floor of the premises; the respondent is carrying on banking business under the name and style of Vysya Bank Limited in the I floor; as both were insufficient for its business and inconvenient for its customers, the respondent- bank proposes to have banking business in the ground floor also in order to cater to the banking needs of its customers; it would also facilitate easy access to the sick, old aged and disabled customers, who find it difficult to climb the stairs; the bank also proposes to have several safe deposit lockers and deposit counters in the ground floor; lift in the building is not working properly and therefore, the respondent bank by written notices requested the petitioner tenants to vacate and deliver vacant possessiofi of the suit premises in their respective possession for the use and occupation of the bank. As the tenants did not co-operate, the bank was constrained to file eviction petitions.

(3.) Petitioners besides denying those allegations stated that petitions for eviction were filed as petitioners could not meet the demand of enhancement of rent made by the respondent bank and therefore, petitions are filed with a mala fide intention to harass the tenants.