(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed in R.A.No.94 of 1999 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
(2.) The petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady in respect of the mulgi bearing No.23-1-1031 situated at Kaman Moghalpura, Hyderabad. Originally the first petitioner herein alone was the tenant against whom the respondent herein filed eviction petition in R.C.No.356 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, denial of title is not bonafide and that the said premises is required for the personal occupation of the landlady to commence business by her son as there was no other non-residential premises under her occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petjtion by order dated 10.12.1998. Aggrieved by the said order the landlady preferred an appeal in R.A.No.94 of 1999 and during the pendency of the appeal the original tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6. The rent appellate Court by judgment dated 16.12.2003 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the rent controller and ordered eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, that the ground of denial of title is not bonafide and that the said premises is required for the personal occupation of landlady for the purpose of commencing business by her son.
(3.) Assailing the said judgment the tenants filed this revision petition contending that the denial of title is bonafide as the relationship of the landlady and tenant has not been established and that the said premises is not at all fonafidely required by the landlady and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate Court is erroneous and contrary to the oral iand documentary evidence as the landlady has not at all proved her ownership and as per the judgment of this Court in MOHD. MOIZUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. MOHD. ISMAIL 2000 (6) ALD 467 the appellate Court has to necessarily meet the findings and all the reasons given in support thereof while reversing the judgment of the rent controller. But in the instant case, the appellate Court independently arrived at different reasons from that of the rent controller, therefore, the judgment of the rent appellate Court is illegal and unsustainable.