NARBADABAI PITTI Vs. B NARSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners seek to assail the order dated 27. 6. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R. A. No. 1 of 2003.

(2.) THE unsuccessful landlords who filed R. C. No. 383 of 2001 seeking eviction of the sole respondent-tenant are the revision petitioners. The eviction was sought under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for brevity 'the Act') on the premise that the demised premises is required for personal occupation bona fide. That was the sole ground under which the eviction was sought for. At the culmination of enquiry and after having heard on either side, the learned rent Controller by an order dated 26. 9. 2002 in R. C. No. 383 of 2001 dismissed the petition. Inter alia in the order, the learned rent Controller was of the view that it was clear in evidence that that the petitioners did not require the above mulgi on bona fide ground and the application was a ruse. The appellate Court under the impugned judgment was of the view that except the ipse dixit of P. Ws. l and 2, there had been no material on record to show that P. W. 2's requirement was bona fide. Thus, the learned Judge concurred with the finding of the learned Rent controller. As aforesaid, it is now being assailed in the instant civil revision petition.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners-landlords was that the respondent-tenant was inducted in the demised premises under a registered lease deed dated 28. 6. 1975 on the condition of payment of rent of Rs. 165/-per month; and that the lease was initially for a period of three years and after expiry of lease period it was renewed for every three years with enhancement of rent. Besides monthly rent, the respondent agreed to pay the property tax payable on the property besides paying the electricity consumption charges. The rent which had been enhanced from time to time eventually was at Rs. 421/- per month plus Rs. 50/-towards property tax, thus in an aggregate at Rs. 471/- per month; and that the tenant has been paying the rent as well as property tax, electricity charges, etc. However, the premises in question was required for the petitioners' own use for running medical business to be started by the second petitioner who gained experience as a Pharmacist when he was carrying on business of medical shop during the period 1962-71 at Secunderabad. The second petitioner was carrying on the business in a rented premises which is situate at Bank street, Hyderabad. The demised premises was quite convenient for running the business by the second petitioner. No other non-residential premises was available to the petitioners to carry on the medical business except the one in question. Earlier, the petitioner filed R. C. No. 611 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, against the respondent-tenant seeking eviction on the grounds of wilful default and personal requirement of the second petitioner for running business in medical shop. However, on account of the stay granted by the High Court for a long time and as the Rent Controller was not taking up the petition for enquiry, the petitioners lost interest in the said matter and they shifted their residence from Tilak road to Domalaguda and were not in touch with their Advocate and left the case for its fate. The petitioners 2 and 3 completed their studies and were planning to start their own business and for the said purpose the demised premises was required.