SATHAIAH Vs. SAVITHRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are described as arrayed in C.R.P. No.2569 of 1993.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of one portion of residential premises bearing No.4-7-427 situate at Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, on -a monthly rental of Rs.60/-. The respondent-land lady filed petition under Section 10(2)(i), (ii) (b), (iii), (iv) (v) arid 10(3)(i)(a) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she needs the same as she has large family consisting of her husband, her mother-in-law and four children aged 8, 5, 3 and 1/2 years. She says in the petition that her husband has purchased other two portions of the premises bearing Nos.4-7-425 and 4-7-426 where two other tenants are staying, against whom eviction petitions have been filed by her husband and that she does not own or possess any other property in the City or elsewhere. It is also alleged that the petitioner has purchased a house bearing No.2-3-54/B, Khadribagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad, and in view of his securing alternative accommodation, he is liable to be evicted. Other grounds of waste, nuisance and default in payment of water and electricity charges are also alleged. The tenant has filed counter denying purchase of house No.2-3-54/B at Amberpet and bona fide requirement of the premises by the land-lady. It has been stated that the petition has been filed only because he did not accept the demand of the land lady for enhanced rent. He also denied default in payment of electricity and water charges, acts, of waste and nuisance. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and rejected the other grounds raised by the land-lady. R.A. No. 586 of 1989 . filled by the tenant was dismissed and the tenant has preferred C.R.P. No.2569 of 1993.

(3.) The only contention raised by Sri M.P. Ugle, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has not secured alternative accommodation and the Courts below are wrong in holding to the contrary.