VASANTHA RAO Vs. L JAGANNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No. 114 of 1988 dt. 24-1-1994 setting aside the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C.No. 55 of 1982 dt. 29-2-1988.

(2.) The petitioners are the landlords of mulgi No. 7124 now renumberedas 1-3-38 and 1-3-39 of Mahankali Street, Secunderabad. In this case we are concerned only with the mulgi bearing No. 1-3-39. The father of the petitioners purchased this premises. Even by that date itself the respondent was tenant. Therefore, tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioner purchaser. Subsequently in the year 1982 the petitioners filed application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement namely to commence business in kirana and general stores for petitioners 3 and 4. That application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 29-2-1988 against which an appeal was filed in R.A.No. 114/88 before the appellate authority. However, it so transpired during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners-landlords filed another eviction petition in respect of another portion of the mulgi bearing No. 1-3-38 in R.C.No. 159 of 1984 and it was allowed. By virtue of the said orders the landlords took possession of the premises bearing No. 1-3-38 on 3-12-1991. Taking into consideration the later events that the petitioners took possession of another premises adjoining the demised premises and taking into consideration the law laid down in Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Devaji vs. K. Sudershana Rao, the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the tenant by an order dt. 24-1-1994 against which the present revision has been carried by the landlords.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners landlords submits that thepremises which was taken possession of by the landlords in another R.C. No. 159/84 was only 3 feet width and 12 feet length and it would not be convenient for the petitioners to commence the business of general stores and kirana and this aspect was not considered by the appellate Court. Further it is stated that the aspects of quality and size of property held by the petitioner and the requirement of the petitioners were not properly apprecitated even though the appellate Court is entitled to take subsequent events into consideration. Mere fact that a portion of a non-residental character was taken possession does not ipso facto disentitle the landlords to claim balance portion of the same mulgi. Hence he submits that the order of the appellate Court is illegal and contrary to law,