G JAISURYA Vs. HARISHANKER SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-2-2003 passed in R.A.No.249 of 1997 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants in R.C.No.266 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and for the purpose of bona fide commencement of business under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) Initially the learned Rent Controller allowed the said eviction petition by order dated 9-6-1997 on the ground that the claim of permanenttenancy by the tenants is not bona fide and therefore, they are liable to be evicted on the ground mala fide claim of perpetual lease. Against the said order the tenants preferred an appeal in R. A.No.249 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the appellate Court by judgment dated 27-02-2001 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said judgment the tenants filed CRP. No.1717 of 2001 on the file of this Court and this Court by order dated 11-12-2001 remitted the matter to the appellate Court for the purpose of giving opportunity to the parties to let in further evidence with regard to the genuineness of Ex.R-6 based on which permanent tenancy has been claimed as both the Courts below had not appreciated the matter on the specific ground i.e. the raising of the ground of permanent tenancy in proper perspective. Pursuant to the orderof this Court the appellate Court considered the matter afresh and by impugned order dated 03-02-2003 in R. A. No.249 of 1997 held that Ex. R-6 has been executed by the father of the landlord stating that it is permanent lease and there is no mala fide intention with regard to the claim of permanent tenancy in view of Ex.R-6 being executed by the father of the landlord. Therefore, there is bona fide intention on the part of the tenants in claiming permanent tenancy and accordingly the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. Thus, aggrieved by the said judgment the landlord filed this revision petition.