CHUNNU BAI Vs. K RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order dated 18-2-1994 passed in R.A. No. 233/1989 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) Landlady is the revision petitioner herein. She filed R.C.No. 731 of 1986 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the deceased tenant, who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below, under Section 10 (3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). The said petition was dismissed holding that the requirement of the petition schedule premises as additional accommodation is not bonafide. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlady carried the matter in appeal which was also dismissed confirming the findings of the Rent Controller. Hence, the revision.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows. The landlady is residing in the building bearing Municipal No. 3-3-65 and 66 situated at Rajmohalla, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same in the year 1977. The said building consists of one small varandah measuring 5' - 2" x 10' and two rooms measuring 10' - 2" x 2' (sic. 10'-0) and 14' x 10'- 31/2'. The family of the landlady consists of herself, her husband, three daughters and two sons. Out of the said rooms, they are using one room as kitchen and store room and the other room as bed room. While so, the landlady purchased the petition schedule premises, which is a garage like room, bearing Municipal No. 3-5-67 (Old No. 70A), under a registered sale deed dated 22-1-1985 from one Smt. Jayavanthi. It is averred that the residential house in which the landlady is now living and the petition schedule building is part and parcel of one and the same building and belonged to one and the same owner initially. Since the present residential accommodation is very much insufficient for their use as there are grown up school going children in their family, the landlady purchased the petition schedule building with a view to use the same as additional accommodation for her residential purposes. It is submitted that by the date of her purchase of the petition schedule building, the tenant was in occupation of the same by paying monthly rentals to the earlier owner. After the purchase of the demised premises by the landlady, she got issued a notice to the tenant intimating him about the change of ownership and from then the tenant started sending the rents to the landlady, In view of the pressing need for additional accommodation of the landlady, she asked the respondent- tenant to vacate the premises but he failed to do so. Hence, she filed the petition for eviction.