GOVIND NARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. GORAK BALARAMGIRI NAGENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise under similar factual background. The petitioners are tenants, in respect of different residential premises, owned by the respondent. The eviction of the petitioners was sought by the respondent on the same grounds, namely wilful default and bona fide requirement. The facts are common to both the revisions. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order.

(2.) The tenancy in favour of the petitioners commenced about 18 years back. The respondent filed R.C.Nos.144 and 146 of 2001 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, against the petitioners under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act'), pleading that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents, and that the premises are needed for occupation by his sons. The particulars of the period, for which the default is said to have been committed, was furnished and it was urged that the sons of the respondent intend to settle down in the schedule premises. The petitioners filed counter affidavits, denying the averments in the petitions, filed against them. They contended that rents were being paid regularly, and that there are no bona fides in the claim of the respondent about the requirement of the premises. Through separate orders dated 31-03-2004, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent tailed to prove the plea of wilful default in payment of rents, but directed eviction of the petitioners on finding that the requirement of the premises of the respondent is bona fide. The petitioners filed Rent Appeal Nos.107 and 108 of 2004 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The Rent Appeals were dismissed on 25-09-2006. Hence, these two revisions.

(3.) Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plea of bona fide requirement was not at all supported by evidence on record, or the conduct of the respondent, till the date of filing or the R.C. He contends that the respondent got issued notice, dated 23-09-2001, to the petitioner in C.R.P.No.5834 of 2006, about 15 days before filing the R.C., wherein the alleged requirement of the premises for occupation by the sons of the respondent, was not mentioned at all. He further submits that the respondent owns several premises, and the eviction of the tenants is sought on the same ground, misusing the provisions of the Act.