S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Judgment rendered in R. A. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, at hyderabad.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the R. C. No. 301 of 1995 on the file of I Additional rent Controller, at Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE brief resume of admitted facts are necessary to consider the case in both the civil Revision Petitions. It is an undisputed fact that the premises is owned by the landlord, who is the petitioner in R. C. No. 301 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional rent Controller, at Hyderabad.

( 4 ) THE schedule premises was said to have been let out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- exclusive of the electricity charges which are directly payable by the first respondent to the Electricity department. The schedule premises was constructed in the year 1950 and let out orally. The premises consists of three rooms, open yard, bathroom, toilet and well. The petitioner has presented R. C. No. 301 of 1995 under Section 10 (2) (ii) (a), 10 (2) (iii)and 10 (3) (a) (i) (b) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, the Act ) for eviction on the ground of sub-letting the premises to second respondent by the first respondent and also for bona fide personal occupation as his family became large viz. ,increased to 18 members.

( 5 ) THE respondents are the tenants, who contend that there was no sub-letting of the premises and there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to seek eviction. It is also contended that the petitioner is a teacher, giving tuitions in the upstairs portion of the premises. It is also further contended that the family of the landlord consists of only 13 members, but not 18 members. The respondent nave contended that the family of the landlord is of only 13 members and he has acquired some premises during pendency of the petition in the name of his wife and hence, there is an embargo put under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the act. The tenants have also contended that there was no sub-letting to second respondent and the second respondent has been residing along with first respondent. The tenants claim that Kistaiah and Remaiah are brothers, who are fathers of first respondent and second respondent respectively. Ramaiah, father of the second respondent, died when the second respondent was aged about 7 or 8 years old and the second respondent was brought under the care and custody of the father of the first respondent and the marriage of second respondent was performed on 12-3-1967. The tenants also claim that there was no alternative accommodation for them to live.

( 6 ) ON the strength of the said facts, an enquiry was conducted by the Rent controller. The Rent Controller examined the petitioner and respondents and marked five documents on behalf of the petitioner and eight documents on behalf of the respondents. Ultimately, the Rent Controller gave a finding that the requirement of the petitioner/landlord is not bona fide and rejected the plea of sub-letting. The Rent controller has also rejected the alleged plea of causing nuisance and he has dismissed the application, as the premises are not required bona fide by the petitioner. Thereupon, the landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad in r. A. No. 32 of 1998, who reversed the findings of the trial Court relating to bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and ordered eviction, while confirming the order of the Rent Control Court in respect of finding of sub-letting and nuisance.

( 7 ) THEREUPON the landlord has preferred the revision in C. R. P. No. 2098 of 2002, whereas the tenants preferred C. R. P. No. 5308 of 2001. During the pendency of these revisions, an application C. M. P. No. 16621 of 2004 has been filed by the tenants to receive additional evidence in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document