G SATYANARAYANA Vs. SABIR BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is filed against the Orders dated 18-3-1993 in R.A. No. 234 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by which the appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the orders of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad dated 8-3-1989 in R.C No. 839 of 1987 and allowing the petition for eviction.

(2.) The second respondent herein is the son of the first respondent. They filed R.C. 839 of 1987 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use. The petition schedule premises is a non-residential building which was let out to the revision petitioner in the year 1976 andhe is runninghis Scooter workshop in the said premises eversince then paying the rent to the first respondent who is the owner of the premises. The petition was filed for eviction of the revision petitioner contending that the first respondent and her husband have been carrying on meat business in a rented premises at Ameerpet; that they have three sons and five daughters and the eldest son who is the second respondent has become a major and they proposed to set up another meat shop in his name as their family consists of number of persons to be maintained and as the present income is not sufficient for their maintenance; that the petition schedule premises which was leased out to the petitioner herein is, therefore, required for such purpose and that, therefore, the petition was filed seeking eviction of the petitioner on such ground of bona fide requirement for personal use.

(3.) The petitioner herein, who is the tenant, contested the petition contending that the respondents are already running their business in meat in a rented premises at Ameerpet; that they do not require the petition schedule premises for the alleged business to be started in the name of the second respondent; that such ground is only invented for seeking eviction and it is not a bow fide requirement; that the petition for eviction was filed only with a view to coerce him to enhance the rent and that the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed,