RAJKUMAR Vs. GANESH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.NO. 1441 of 1998 arises out of R.C.No. 594 of 1992 and C.R.P. No. 1442 of 1998 arises out of R.C.No. 726 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. In both the cases, the landlords sought eviction of the petitioner from the mulgi bearing No. 4-3-646 at Ramkote, Hyderabad in which the petitioner-tenant was carrying on hair-dressing saloon at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. In R.C.No. 594 of 1992, the ground for eviction is that the landlord (respondent herein) wants to demolish and reconstruct the entire building as it is in a dilapidated condition. The petition was, therefore, filed under Section 12 of the Act. In R.C.No. 726 of 1993, which is between the same parties in respect of the same mulgi, the respondent herein filed eviction petition under Section 10(3) (iii)(b) and Section 10(2)(v) of the Act read with Section 12. The first ground is that the shop is required for the personal requirements. The second ground is that the respondent-tenant secured alternative accommodation. Except the ground of personal requirement, the other grounds were accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction was ordered. The appellate authority viz., Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Hence these C.R.Ps.

(2.) As far as C.R.P.No.1441 of 1998 (arising out of R.C.594/92) is concerned, the only argument raised was that the landlord has to give an undertaking as prescribed by Section 12. The correctness of the decision in Kondari Suryanarayana v. Pinninti Sheshagiri Rao was assailed at one point of time. However, in the course of further arguments, the Court was informed that in the event of CRP.No. 1442 of 1998 being decided against the landlord, the landlord is prepared to give an undertaking and therefore, I need not go into the merits of C.R.P.No.1441 of 1998 at all. If the petitioner succeeds in C.R.P. No. 1442 of 1998, he will have to vacate the premises subject to the undertaking being given by the landlord, as agreed to by the landlord himself. However, if the petitioner-tenant fails in C.R.P.No. 1442 of 1998, he will have to vacate unconditionally. The contest is, therefore, mainly in C.R.P.No. 1442 of 1998 arising out of R.C.No. 726 of 1993.

(3.) In eviction petition filed by the landlord in R.C.No. 726 of 1993, it is alleged that the tenant secured alternative accommodation for his business of hair dressing saloon. This is what is stated in the petition. The respondent has obtained mulgi at Sultanbazar, Basheerbagh, Badichowdi and also at Chappal Bazar. The tenant in his counter denied the fact that he obtained any mulgi at Sultan Bazar, Basheerbagh, Badichowdi and at Chappal Bazar. Nothing more was stated in the counter.