AMIR ALI Vs. MANECK H GHADIALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS filed RC No. 207 of 1991, against the petitioners, before the principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction. As many as five grounds under the relevant clauses of Section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act (for short "the Act"), were pleaded. It was alleged that the petitioners:

(2.) WHILE the petitioners filed R. A. No. 208 of 2004, before the Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, directing eviction, the respondents filed r. A. No. 240 of 2004, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the other grounds for eviction. Through a common judgment dated 9. 7. 2007, the learned Chief Judge sustained the eviction of the petitioners, on the ground that there is bona fide requirement of the premises for respondent No. 1, to start his business. The finding on the allegation as to the wilful default was set aside. A finding was recorded in R. A. No. 240 of 2004, to the effect that the petitioners have secured alternative accommodation. This CRP is filed against the order in R. A. No. 208 of 2004. The record does not disclose that any revision was filed against the order in R. A. No. 240 of 2004.

(3.) SRI S. Balchand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, either concurrently or independently, are unsustainable in law and on facts. He submits that possession of the premises was secured, about three decades ago by the respondents, by pleading bona fide personal requirement, and thereafter, they leased the premises to the petitioners. He submits that the alternative premises, mentioned by the respondents, are owned and held by the wife of the 1st petitioner, and therefore, it cannot constitute a basis for eviction. Learned Counsel further submits that under the lease deed, petitioners are entitled to remain in possession upto the year 2013, and the very institution of the eviction petition was unsustainable in law.