B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE subject-matter of this revision petition arises under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Rent Control Act ). The unsuccessful landlord is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the tenant in a non-residential premises, admittedly owned by the petitioner. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the ownership of the petition schedule premises. There is also no dispute with regard to the jurat relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed RC No. 604 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (3) (b) and 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the Rent Control Act, for the eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises consisting of ground floor Mulgi and first floor portion bearing Municipal No. 21-2-7, situated at Pathargatti, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as the Premises ). The eviction of the respondent/tenant herein is sought mainly on the ground that the premises is required for the own business purposes of the petitioner and he is under the bona fide need of the premises. It is also the case of the petitioner/landlord that the respondent/tenant is using the first floor of the premises for his residence after converting it into kitchen and living room. According to the petitioner/landlord the respondent Aenant has converted the use of the premises without any permission whatsoever from that of non-residential to residential. Eviction is sought on both the grounds.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondent/ tenant that the premises was obtained for non-residential and residential purposes. Ground floor is obtained for running a cloth shop and up-stair for residential purposes right from the inception of the tenancy. The allegation made in the eviction petition that the entire premises has been let out for non-residential purpose for running the cloth business by the respondent/tenant, is denied. The tenancy is for the composite lease of residential and non-residential purposes, is the case of put forth by the respondent/tenant. It is also the case of the respondent/tenant that the rental agreement dated 1-11-1982 is without stipulation of any period. He is expected to continue in the premise by enhancing the rent for every three years at 20% on the existing rent. The privity of the tenancy between the parties does not entitle the petitioner/landlord to file eviction petition. It is also the case of the respondent/tenant that the petitioner/landlord is already doing business in agricultural implements and, therefore, he cannot claim the possession of the premises for doing cloth business.

( 4 ) IN the rejoinder, the petitioner/ landlord specifically stated that he is not in possession of any non-residential portions and the Mulgi bearing No. 138 (Old), Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, is in the possession of the tenant and the said Mulgi is not at all suitable for doing cloth business. It is also the case of the petitioner/landlord that the premises No. 138 (Old), Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, is consisting Mulgies on the bank of the road and the residential portion behind the same. It is a two storied building. The Municipal Corporation has given separate door numbers to the Mulgies (Non-residential portions ). In the said building, the petitioner/landlord has been allotted, in the final decree proceedings in OSNo. 3i5 of 1982 between himself and his other members of the joint family members, two shops bearing Municipal Nos. 5-2-94 and 5-2-95 and a residential portion behind it bearing Municipal D. No. 5-2-64. It is his specific case that though two municipal numbers were given, it is only one shop in the occupation of the tenant. The petitioner/ landlord himself is residing in the residential portion since a long time, even prior to the filing of the eviction petition and that he cannot do business in the said premises, which is being used for reside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document