D.J.ABHAY SHANKAR Vs. M. SANDHYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is preferred by the Landlord impugning the order, dt.14/9/2015 in R.A.No.93 of 2014 passed by the Addl.Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by setting aside the order,dt.11/3/2014 in R.C.No.164 of 2012 on the file of the Prl.Rent Controller, which is allowed with the contentions in the grounds of revision that the order of the Court below is contrary to law, and the lower appellate Court failed to either apply the case law or to discuss several of the decisions that were cited at the bar. The lower appellate Court erred in reversing the orders of the eviction passed by the trial Court considering basic concept of bonafide requirement of additional accommodation to the Revision Petitioner who had successfully pleaded and proved before the trial Court all the criteria including experience readiness, finances and other aspects. The lower appellate Court did not consider the fact of requirement of additional accommodation for the use of school office by the Landlord which fact was already stated in the eviction petition and also the chief examination of P.W.1. The lower appellate Court erroneously relied upon rough sketch in which not given the dimensions of any of the shops which are on either side of the petition schedule mulgi. Hence, the order of the lower appellate Court is liable to be dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court.

(2.) The case in R.C.No.164 of 2012 filed by the revision petitioner-Landlord against the Revision respondent-Tenant is that the Revision petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.3/5/214, Laxminagar, Picket, Secunderabad and has been running a school in part of premises under the name and style as Vedavathi Memorial High School and he requires the schedule property as additional accommodation for the school office. He further submitted that the respondent 's mother by name V.Savithiri had obtained the schedule property on rent and carrying on tailoring business there in the name and style as Sona Tailor. Since the schedule property was bonafidely required, the revision petitioner requested the respondent 's mother to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant mulgi but she failed to vacate for which he filed a case for eviction in R.C.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Addl.Rent Controller, Secunderabad. Subsequently the mother of the respondent died on 6/12/2008 and that case was dismissed for default on 15/12/2009. After the death of respondent 's mother, the respondent is continuing in the schedule property and has been carrying on tailoring business in the name and style of 'New Sona Tailors ". The revision petitioner also requested the respondent to vacate the schedule mulgi but she failed to do so. Then the petitioner got issued a legal notice on 7/5/2012 to the respondent by terminating the tenancy and calling upon to vacate the schedule mulgi under Ex.P.1 which is acknowledged by Ex.P.3 and issued reply under Ex.P.4 dt.28/5/2012 but refused to vacate the mulgi.

(3.) The respondent 's counter contest, while admitting tenancy, denying eviction petition averments including bona fide requirement and entitlement of premises to vacate are that the rent of Rs.300.00 p.m. was enhanced from time to time to the present one at Rs.1551.00 p.m. exclusive of the electricity charges. Recently the revision petitioner stopped providing drinking water and also prevents usage of common toilets to evict one way or other so to let out the schedule property to third persons for more rent. The petitioner is having 10 mulgies in the premises No.3/5/214 and also having open place inside the school premises and first and second floors are let out to several tenants. If the revision petitioner is in need of additional accommodation for school office and the requirement of the schedule premises is bona fide, he can occupy the first floor which is very convenient and spacious than the schedule mulgi. She further submitted that the entire family of her is depending on the income of the tailoring business running in the schedule property and if she is evicted, she would suffer irreparable loss and hardship and sought for dismissal of the eviction petition as not bonafide and the leasehold premises in her tenancy no way required by the eviction petitioner.