GUIRAM LALOI Vs. MIR AZAM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions were filed by the landlord questioning the common orders dated 2-12-1992 passed in R.A.Nos. 450/88 and 451/88 which were dismissed by the appellate Court thereby confirming the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C.CNo.522/86 (Old R.C.C.134/82) and R.C.No.130 of 1987 (Old R.C.38/83) by which the petitions were dismissed.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the landlord while the first respondent herein is the original tenant who died during the pendency of the rent control proceedings and in whose place the other respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives. The landlord filed R.C.522/86 at the first instance seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, which is a non-residential building, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from February 1982 to May 1982 (four months). During the pendency of the said Rent Control Petition the landlord filed other R.C.C.130/87 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement for additional accommodation and also on the ground of nuisance. Both the petitions were enquired together and by the common order dt.1-8-1988 the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissed both the eviction petitions having come to the conclusion that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and the requirement of the landlord is not proved to be bona fide and there is also no nuisance caused to the landlord on account of the business that is carried on by the tenant in the demised premises. Questioning such orders the landlord filed R.A.450/88 against the orders in R.C.522/86, and the other R.A.451/88 questioning the orders in R.C.130/87. Both these appeals were dismissed by the appellate Court which confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller relating to all grounds of eviction in both the cases by the common order dt.2-12-1992. C.R.P.1692/93 is filed by the landlord questioning the order in R.A. 450/88 and CR.P.1693/93 is filed against the order in R.A.451/88.

(3.) As both the revisions arise out of the common order passed by the appellate Court, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press and did not argue relating to the ground of nuisance which was rejected by both the Courts below. He however contended that the findings of the Courts below regarding the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement of the building for additional accommodation are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and are therefore liable to be set aside.