GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 for short "the Rent control Act", aggrieved by the order dated 3-4-1995 passed in R. A. No. 225 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court at Hyderabad, reversing the order of eviction passed in r. C. No. 248 of 1987 dated 23-3-1994 by the iv Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the suit mulgi bearing no. 2-4-1948, Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad was let out to the respondent for the purpose of carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 80. 00. The revision petitioner filed the R. C. No. 248 of 1987 before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (2) (v); and 3 (iii) of the Rent control Act seeking eviction of the respondent. It is stated that the respondent closed the mulgi for the last four years and he is not carrying on the business, that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the suit mulgi is next to his house, and has additional facility of bath room and latrine which is not available in other mulgies, therefore he requires the mulgi for personal requirement and that the respondent is doing business at another place under the name and style of Sheshi electronics Radio Sales and Services in Malgi No. 1-8-550, Chikkadapally, hyderabad and hence, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of securing alternative accommodation. It is stated that the suit mulgi was constructed in the year 1969 and therefore the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to try the same.

( 3 ) THE respondent denied the averments made by the petitioner. It is however, stated that the respondent is the tenant of the mulgi since 1972 onwards on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00 at the initial stage, which was subsequently enhanced to rs. 70/- and later in the year 1981 for a sum of Rs. 80. 00 per month. It is further stated by the respondent with regard to plea of securing alternative accommodation, that he in no manner dealing with the business under the name and style of "shashi electronics Sales and Services" in mulgi no. 1-8-550, Chikkadapply, Hyderabad, and that the petitioner absolutely failed to link the business of the respondent at the above two places, as such for any reason or cause the plea of alleged securing alternative accommodation do not withstand in law.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for its consideration. " (1) Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rent; if so, such default is wilful default? (2) Whether the respondent ceased to occupy the suit premises? (3) Whether the petitioner bona fidely requires the suit premises for his personal occupation to set up legal practice? (4) Whether the respondent has secured any alternative accommodation to run the business? (5) To what relief?"

( 5 ) THE petitioner examined himself as p. W. I and marked Exs. P-1 to P-11. The respondent herein examined himself as r. W. 1 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-17.

( 6 ) THE learned Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence allowed the petition in so far as the ground of the respondent securing alternative accommodation and dismissed the eviction petition on all other grounds. Thus, the Rent controller ordered eviction on the ground of the respondent securing the alternative accommodation.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of eviction R. A. No. 225 of 1994 was filed by the tenant-respondent. The Rent Appellate court by the order under revision set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent controller. Hence, the present Civil revision Petition has been filed.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner sri N. Ashok Kumar, vehemently contended that the entire approach of the rent Appellate Court is based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to the evidence. The Rent Appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document